Karkoond

MEMORANDUM *

Babak Rafiei Karkoond appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dis *180 missal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his motion to reopen his case after he was ordered removed at an in absentia hearing

Karkoond first argues that the BIA abused its discretion and violated due process by issuing a brief per curiam ruling that did not explicitly indicate that it had fully considered the facts in Karkoond’s ease. We have held that the BIA can adopt the IJ’s decision as its own. Alaelua v. INS, 45 F.3d 1379, 1382 (9th Cir. 1995). The BIA did not abuse its discretion or violate due process by issuing an opinion that expresses agreement with the IJ’s conclusions and reasoning.

Karkoond also asserts that the IJ abused her discretion in denying his motion to reopen when she found that his older brother’s failure to maintain contact with Karkoond’s attorney did not constitute “exceptional circumstances” meriting the reopening of his case under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 240(b)(5)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i). The INA defines “exceptional circumstances” as “exceptional circumstances (such as serious illness of the alien or serious illness or…