From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jin v. Lynch

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Sep 2, 2015
615 F. App'x 881 (9th Cir. 2015)

Opinion

No. 13-72736

09-02-2015

SHUIYUE JIN, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Agency No. A099-890-521 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

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

Shuiyue Jin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her 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. Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Jin's motion to reopen, where the evidence does not compel the finding that she established exceptional circumstances for her failure to appear. See 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i); Celis-Castellano, 298 F.3d at 892 (applying a totality of the circumstances test to determine whether exceptional circumstances were present); Limsico v. INS, 951 F.2d 210, 214 (9th Cir. 1991) (agency has authority to evaluate contrary evidence).

Because this determination is dispositive, we need not reach Jin's contentions regarding whether her illness was sufficiently serious to constitute exceptional circumstances.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Summaries of

Jin v. Lynch

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Sep 2, 2015
615 F. App'x 881 (9th Cir. 2015)
Case details for

Jin v. Lynch

Case Details

Full title:SHUIYUE JIN, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Sep 2, 2015

Citations

615 F. App'x 881 (9th Cir. 2015)