NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 17 2022 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS YENNY MARICELA SANCHEZ MARTIN No. 19-72782 DE DOMINGO, AKA Yenny Maricela Sanchez Martinez de Domingo; ASTRID Agency Nos. A209-008-324 LUDIANA DOMINGO SANCHEZ, A209-008-325 Petitioners, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted May 12, 2021 San Francisco, California Before: NGUYEN and COLLINS, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,** District Judge. Petitioners Yenny Maricela Sanchez Martin de Domingo (“Sanchez Martin”) and her minor daughter Astrid Ludiana Domingo Sanchez, citizens and natives of Guatemala, petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding the denial by the immigration judge (“IJ”) of their * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. motion to reopen and to rescind their in absentia removal orders, which were issued after they failed to appear at their removal hearing. We have jurisdiction under § 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002), we deny the petition. 1. Petitioners contend that the BIA abused its discretion in concluding that they had failed to demonstrate that their “failure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i). The INA defines the requisite “exceptional circumstances” as “refer[ring] to exceptional circumstances (such as battery or extreme cruelty to the alien or any child or parent of the alien, serious illness of the alien, or serious illness or death of the spouse, child, or parent of the alien, but not including less compelling circumstances) beyond the control of the alien.” See id. § 1229a(e)(1); see also Singh-Bhathal v. INS, 170 F.3d 943, 947 (9th Cir. 1999) (exceptional circumstances must include a “similarly severe impediment” as those enumerated in the statute). We conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that this standard was not met here. Petitioners stated in their motion to reopen that Sanchez Martin had “mistaken the date[]” of her hearing, which led her to arrive at the immigration court two days late. The IJ concluded that, even taking into account Petitioners’ pending applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the 2 Convention Against Torture, Petitioners had not established exceptional circumstances. Petitioners argue, as they did before the BIA, that the IJ failed to take account of the totality of the circumstances, including Sanchez Martin’s illiteracy and language barriers, the fact that Petitioners promptly notified the immigration court after discovering their error, and Petitioners’ pending applications for relief. But the IJ explicitly considered the pending applications, and it was not an abuse of discretion for the BIA to conclude that …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals