Milentyeva v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Milentyeva v. Gonzales

142 F. App'x 994

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 15, 2005

DocketNo. 04-70947; Agency No. A75-712-834

StatusPublished

This text of 142 F. App'x 994 (Milentyeva v. Gonzales) 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

Milentyeva v. Gonzales, 142 F. App'x 994 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Zoya Petrovna Milentyeva, a native of Russia and citizen of Uzbekistan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of her appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proeeed[995]*995ings held in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 890-91 (9th Cir. 2002). We grant the petition for review.

The BIA abused its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because Milentyeva’s evidence of illness on the day of her removal proceeding was sufficient to establish “exceptional circumstances” excusing her failure to appear before the IJ. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(c); Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir.2000). Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand for consideration of Milentyeva’s asylum application.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit 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

**

Zoya Petrovna Milentyeva, a native of Russia and citizen of Uzbekistan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of her appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proeeed[995]*995ings held in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 890-91 (9th Cir. 2002). We grant the petition for review.

The BIA abused its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because Milentyeva’s evidence of illness on the day of her removal proceeding was sufficient to establish “exceptional circumstances” excusing her failure to appear before the IJ. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(c); Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir.2000). Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand for consideration of Milentyeva’s asylum application.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 F. App'x 994, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milentyeva-v-gonzales-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack