Hailian Xu v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HAILIAN XU,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73792
Agency No. A099-440-171
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Hailian Xu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
order denying his 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, and we review de novo questions of law. Mohammed
* 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).
FILED
FEB 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-73792
v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for
review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Xu’s motion to reopen,
where he failed to present sufficient evidence to show that he failed to appear at his
hearing due to exceptional circumstances beyond his control. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(e)(1); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii); Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d
888, 892 (9th Cir. 2002).
We reject Xu’s contention that the agency failed to consider relevant
evidence. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding
the BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision);
Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not
overcome the presumption that the BIA did review the record).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Xu’s remaining contentions
regarding equitable tolling or due diligence. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d
532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues
unnecessary to the results they reach).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --