NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANGEL GONZALEZ-GARCIA, No. 17-71880 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-716-997 Board of Immigration Appeals v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General MEMORANDUM* Respondent, Appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 15, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: BERZON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and LEMELLE,*** Senior District Judge. Petitioner Angel Gonzalez-Garcia appeals the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (BIA) decision affirming the denial of petitioner’s motion to reopen * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** This appeal is ordered submitted on the briefs as of April 15, 2020, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Ivan L.R. Lemelle, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. removal proceedings by the Immigration Court (IJ). Petitioner also moves to remand based on Pereira v. Sessions, ---U.S.----, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). The IJ ruled that petitioner’s removability was established by clear and convincing evidence and ordered removal in absentia. In response to petitioner’s lack of proper notice claims, the IJ found: “Although the [petitioner] diligently appeared for ISAP, after learning . . . that he missed his February 9, 2016, hearing, the [petitioner] ‘failed to advise . . . the immigration court of his whereabouts’ and ‘did not demonstrate the diligence necessary for a finding of exceptional circumstances.’” (quoting Vukmirovic v. Holder, 640 F.3d 977, 978–79 (9th Cir. 2011). Exceptional circumstances must include a severe impediment. Singh- Bhathal v. INS, 170 F.3d 943, 947 (9th Cir. 1999). Contrary to petitioner’s argument, the BIA did not act arbitrarily and provided sufficient reasoning in its decision. As it incorporated the IJ’s decision, we treat the IJ’s statement of reasons as the BIA’s. See Alaelua v. I.N.S., 45 F.3d 1379, 1382 (9th Cir. 1995). Petitioner maintains he was confused about the location of the Immigration Court. Despite an incorrect court address in an earlier notice to appear (NTA), subsequent notices of hearing from the Immigration Court informed petitioner of the address for removal proceedings. Additionally, petitioner failed to keep the agency informed of his address. Being confused about the location of a meeting 2 can be remedied with a simple question. There is nothing exceptional about being confused. Valencia-Fragoso v. INS, 321 F.3d 1204, 1205–06 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioner also contends the BIA improperly relied on a failure to submit an application for relief demonstrating a prima facie case of eligibility. Unlike the petitioner in Yeghiazaryan v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2006), petitioner never stated an intention to submit supporting evidence. Instead, he merely offered to provide evidence if the Court requested. It was petitioner’s obligation to provide that factual support. The conclusory claim of entitlement to “T-nonimmigrant status or defensive asylum”, fails to present a prima facie basis for relief. Singh v. I.N.S., 213 F.3d 1050, 1054 n. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals