Fernando Cruz Hernandez v. Merrick Garland
This text of Fernando Cruz Hernandez v. Merrick Garland (Fernando Cruz Hernandez v. Merrick Garland) 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 25 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FERNANDO CRUZ HERNANDEZ, No. 19-73262
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-465-394
v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 19, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Fernando Cruz Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen proceedings
and rescind an in absentia removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
* 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). § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen.
Arredondo v. Lynch, 824 F.3d 801, 805 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Cruz Hernandez’s motion to
reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia, where Cruz Hernandez failed
to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to excuse his absence from the hearing.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C); Arredondo, 824 F.3d at 805-06 (setting forth
standards governing when a motion to reopen may rescind an in absentia removal
order and discussing exceptional circumstances); see also Valencia-Fragoso v.
INS, 321 F.3d 1204, 1205-06 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (concluding BIA did not
abuse its discretion in determining that petitioner failed to establish that her
misunderstanding of the hearing time amounted to exceptional circumstances).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 19-73262
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Fernando Cruz Hernandez v. Merrick Garland, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fernando-cruz-hernandez-v-merrick-garland-ca9-2022.