`
`
`
`NOT FOR PUBLICATION
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`FILED
`
`
`JAN 17 2025
`
`MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
`U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`
` No. 21-725
`
`Agency No.
`A215-825-003
`
`
`MEMORANDUM*
`
`FRANCISCO ALEXANDER PALACIOS-
`PARADA,
`
` Petitioner,
`
` v.
`
`MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
`General,
`
` Respondent.
`
`
`
`On Petition for Review of an Order of the
`Board of Immigration Appeals
`
`Submitted January 15, 2025**
`Pasadena, California
`
`
`Before: RAWLINSON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF, District
`Judge.***
`
`
`Petitioner Francisco Alexander Palacios-Parada, a native and citizen of El
`
`*
`
`
`This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
`except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
`
`**
`
`The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
`without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
`
`***
`The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the
`Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order
`
`dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying his motion
`
`to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction
`
`pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review. Because the
`
`parties are familiar with the facts of this case, we do not recount them here except
`
`as necessary to provide context to our ruling.
`
`Through his motion to reopen, Petitioner seeks the rescission of an order of
`
`removal that the IJ entered in absentia after Petitioner failed to appear for a
`
`mandatory removal hearing. Petitioner claims that his failure to appear is excused
`
`by exceptional circumstances. See Campos-Chaves v. Garland, 602 U.S. 447, 452
`
`(2024) (citing 8 U.S.C § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i)). Exceptional circumstances are
`
`circumstances “beyond the control of the [noncitizen],” “such as battery or extreme
`
`cruelty to the [noncitizen] or any child or parent of the [noncitizen], serious illness
`
`of the [noncitizen], or serious illness or death of the spouse, child, or parent of the
`
`[noncitizen],” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1), and other “similarly severe impediment[s],”
`
`Singh-Bhathal v. INS, 170 F.3d 943, 946–47 (9th Cir. 1999).
`
`The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion to
`
`reopen because Petitioner did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances for
`
`purposes of § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i). Petitioner claims that exceptional circumstances
`
`were presented because an immigration officer misinformed his aunt that his
`
`
`
`2
`
`21-725
`
`
`
`
`
`hearing would be rescheduled, and his aunt, in turn, passed along that
`
`misinformation to Petitioner. Petitioner claims that he failed to attend the hearing
`
`in reliance on his aunt’s misinformation. But Petitioner presents no reason why he
`
`would place particular trust in that information or fail to evaluate its accuracy
`
`before relying entirely upon it. Further, “[a]lthough [Petitioner] may have received
`
`poor advice, this does not alter the fact that he failed to appear at his hearing, not
`
`because of illness, a death in the family, or some similarly severe impediment[.]”
`
`Singh-Bhathal, 170 F.3d at 947. Instead, Petitioner’s failure to appear was the
`
`result of his own voluntary conduct rather than circumstances beyond his control.
`
`See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1).
`
`Petitioner’s claim that he failed to appear in reliance on his aunt’s
`
`misinformation is particularly unpersuasive when coupled with the fact that he was
`
`repeatedly provided with notice that the hearing was proceeding as scheduled. At
`
`an initial removal hearing, the IJ provided Petitioner with a written notice that
`
`specified the time, date, and location of the mandatory hearing, along with the
`
`requirement that Petitioner attend the hearing. Further, when Petitioner was
`
`released from Department of Homeland Security (DHS) custody, DHS provided
`
`Petitioner with an additional written notice containing a reminder that “[he] ha[d]
`
`been told when to appear for a further hearing.” Because these written notices
`
`clearly advised Petitioner about the mandatory hearing, Petitioner cannot rely on
`
`
`
`3
`
`21-725
`
`
`
`
`
`his aunt’s alleged misinformation to excuse his own voluntary failure to appear.
`
`See Sharma v. INS, 89 F.3d 545, 546, 548 (9th Cir. 1996).1
`
`PETITION DENIED.
`
`
`1 The stay of removal will remain in place until the mandate issues. The motion for
`stay of removal is otherwise denied.
`
`
`
`4
`
`21-725
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
