Escobar-Chavez De Perez v. Bondi
This text of Escobar-Chavez De Perez v. Bondi (Escobar-Chavez De Perez v. Bondi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 14 2025 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
YULIANA ANAHI ESCOBAR-CHAVEZ No. 23-4001 DE PEREZ; STYVEN ISAAC PEREZ- ESCOBAR; ANGELICA ANAHI PEREZ- Agency Nos. ESCOBAR, A203-710-902 A203-710-900 Petitioners, A203-710-901
v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,
Respondent. *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 12, 2025** Pasadena, California
Before: TALLMAN, IKUTA, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Yuliana Anahi Escobar-Chavez De Perez and her two children, Styven Isaac
Perez-Escobar and Angelica Anahi Perez-Escobar, natives and citizens of
Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their motion
to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). reopen. Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002).
Escobar-Chavez De Perez’s mistake concerning the date of her hearing did
not constitute exceptional circumstances beyond her control that would excuse her
failure to appear. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C), (e)(1); Valencia-Fragoso v. INS,
321 F.3d 1204, 1205–06 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioners were not, at the time of the
hearing, the beneficiaries of an approved visa petition, cf. Singh, 295 F.3d at 1040,
nor did they provide evidence of exceptional circumstances beyond their control.
Therefore, the agency did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 23-4001
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Escobar-Chavez De Perez v. Bondi, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/escobar-chavez-de-perez-v-bondi-ca9-2025.