Kumar

MEMORANDUM **

Ashok Kumar, a 32-year-old native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings after he had been ordered removed in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(1), and we deny in part and grant in part the petition.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it determined (1) that Kumar’s motion to reopen was untimely because it was filed more than one year after the IJ ordered his removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i); and (2) that Kumar had not demonstrated “exceptional circumstances” justifying his failure to appear at his removal hearing because he had not shown that he was bedridden or otherwise unable to travel to the hearing, and he never notified his attorney or the immigration court that he was seriously ill. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(l); Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 891-92 (9th Cir.2002). The BIA correctly ruled that Kumar received proper notice of his removal hearing through his counsel, see Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000), and that he was not in…