Berumen v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Berumen v. Holder

312 F. App'x 33

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided February 18, 2009·No. No. 06-71890·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Because petitioner hasn’t shown good cause for his “failure to inquire as to the status of his” court date, he can’t demonstrate “reasonable cause” — let alone “exceptional circumstances” — in support of his motion to reopen. Hernandez-Vivas v. I.N.S., 23 F.3d 1557, 1560 (9th Cir.1994); Valencia-Fragoso v. I.N.S., 321 F.3d 1204, 1205-06 (9th Cir.2003). Under either standard, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion. See Hernandez-Vivas, 23 F.3d at 1560.

DENIED.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Because petitioner hasn’t shown good cause for his “failure to inquire as to the status of his” court date, he can’t demonstrate “reasonable cause” — let alone “exceptional circumstances” — in support of his motion to reopen. Hernandez-Vivas v. I.N.S., 23 F.3d 1557, 1560 (9th Cir.1994); Valencia-Fragoso v. I.N.S., 321 F.3d 1204, 1205-06 (9th Cir.2003). Under either standard, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion. See Hernandez-Vivas, 23 F.3d at 1560.

DENIED.

Footnotes

Berumen v. Holder, 312 F. App'x 33 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

312 F. App'x 33 (Berumen v. Holder) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Footnotes

Related