Madrigal Pedroza v. Gonzales

Good Law
128 F. App'x 2
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 11, 2005No. 04-71002California309 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Raul Madrigal Pedroza and Maria Julian Eutimio, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance without opinion of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their motion to reopen proceedings following an in ab-sentia order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . Reviewing for abuse of discretion, INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 , 112 S.Ct. 719 , 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992), we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

The IJ abused his discretion by concluding that Petitioners had not established the “exceptional circumstances” required to reopen an in absentia order of removal. The affidavits submitted by the Petitioners, along with the note from the pediatrics clinic, were sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner’s young child was seriously ill on the morning of their hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1) (defining exceptional circumstances as including “serious illness of the ... child ... of the alien”).

The IJ also abused his discretion by finding that Petitioners failed to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal because…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.