From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zhang v. Holder

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 21, 2011
438 F. App'x 624 (9th Cir. 2011)

Opinion

No. 10-70507.

Submitted June 15, 2011.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

June 21, 2011.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A099-366-341.

Before: CANBY, O'SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM

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


Jian Zhang, a native and citizen of China, 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, including claims of due process violations. Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Zhang's motion to reopen where Zhang failed to establish exceptional circumstances beyond his control that would excuse his failure to appear at his hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1).

The agency did not violate due process by considering due diligence as a factor in denying Zhang's motion to reopen where the BIA's precedent decision in Matter of J-P-, 22 I. N. Dec. 33 (BIA 1998) (en banc) put Zhang on notice that this factor applied. Cf. Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 2000) (BIA violates due process by applying a "previously unannounced evidentiary standard").

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Summaries of

Zhang v. Holder

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 21, 2011
438 F. App'x 624 (9th Cir. 2011)
Case details for

Zhang v. Holder

Case Details

Full title:JIAN ZHANG, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 21, 2011

Citations

438 F. App'x 624 (9th Cir. 2011)