U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2009

Berumen v. Holder

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided February 18, 2009 · Fisher, Kozinski, Trott

312 F. App'x 33

Counsel

Evan Lee Mum, Esquire, Law Offices of Evan L. Muni, PLC, San Gabriel, CA, for Petitioner., Kristin Edison, Melissa J. Paolella, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Carol Federighi, Esquire, James Arthur Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM **

Because petitioner hasn’t shown good cause for his “failure to inquire as to the status of his” court date, he can’t demonstrate “reasonable cause” — let alone “exceptional circumstances” — in support of his motion to reopen. Hernandez-Vivas v. I.N.S., 23 F.3d 1557, 1560 (9th Cir. 1994); Valencia-Fragoso v. I.N.S., 321 F.3d 1204, 1205-06 (9th Cir. 2003). Under either standard, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion. See Hernandez-Vivas, 23 F.3d at 1560.

DENIED.

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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.