Escobar-Chavez De Perez v. Bondi

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 14 2025 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS YULIANA ANAHI ESCOBAR-CHAVEZ No. 23-4001 DE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