Jorge Garcia Huinac v. Loretta E. Lynch

Ninth Circuit

Jorge Garcia Huinac v. Loretta E. Lynch

637 F. App'x 425

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 29, 2016

Docket14-73092

StatusUnpublished

This text of 637 F. App'x 425 (Jorge Garcia Huinac v. Loretta E. Lynch) 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.

Bluebook

Jorge Garcia Huinac v. Loretta E. Lynch, 637 F. App'x 425 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jorge Luis Garcia Huinac, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 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 reopen, and review de novo questions of law. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Garcia Huinac’s motion to reopen, where Garcia Huinac received proper notice of the hearing, and failed to establish that exceptional circumstances excused his failure to appear at his hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A) (allowing written notice to alien’s counsel of record); id. at (e)(1) (defining exceptional circumstances as circumstances beyond the control of the alien); Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 595 (9th Cir.2004) (exceptional circumstances not demonstrated where alien failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988), and the alleged ineffective assistance is not obvious on the face of the record).

Garcia Huinac’s contentions that the BIA failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision and did not sufficiently address issues he raised on appeal are not supported by the record. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (“[t]he [BIA] does not have to write an exegesis on every contention” (internal quotes omitted)). Accordingly, Garcia Huinac’s due process claims must fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jorge Luis Garcia Huinac, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 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 reopen, and review de novo questions of law. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Garcia Huinac’s motion to reopen, where Garcia Huinac received proper notice of the hearing, and failed to establish that exceptional circumstances excused his failure to appear at his hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A) (allowing written notice to alien’s counsel of record); id. at (e)(1) (defining exceptional circumstances as circumstances beyond the control of the alien); Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 595 (9th Cir.2004) (exceptional circumstances not demonstrated where alien failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988), and the alleged ineffective assistance is not obvious on the face of the record).

Garcia Huinac’s contentions that the BIA failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision and did not sufficiently address issues he raised on appeal are not supported by the record. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (“[t]he [BIA] does not have to write an exegesis on every contention” (internal quotes omitted)). Accordingly, Garcia Huinac’s due process claims must fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

637 F. App'x 425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jorge-garcia-huinac-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack