
    Ashot YEREMYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-70120.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed March 2, 2011.
    Zachary McCready, Esquire, Law Offices of Thomas K. McKnight, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner.
    Kimberly A. Burdge, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ashot Yeremyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen proceedings to rescind an in absentia removal order, Chete Juarez v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 944, 947 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny in part, and dismiss in part, the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Yeremyan’s motion to reopen where Yeremyan failed to demonstrate the existence of “exceptional circumstances ... beyond the control of the alien” that would warrant reopening under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i). See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(l); see also Sharma v. INS, 89 F.3d 545, 547-48 (9th Cir.1996) (traffic congestion and difficulty parking insufficient to require reopening proceedings).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Yeremyan’s contention that his ease is analogous to that of the alien in Jerezano v. INS, 169 F.3d 613, 615 (9th Cir.1999) because Yeremyan failed to exhaust this contention at the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     