
    Ruben URIBE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71871.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 19, 2010.
    Theodore A. Behlendorf, Esquire, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      John J.W. Inkeles, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ruben Uribe, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decisions denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in ab-sentia and denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008), we deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Uribe’s motion to reopen because he was properly served with a notice to appear, advising him of the consequence of failing to appear at a removal hearing, and a notice of hearing, advising him of the time and location of his hearing, but instead relied on the advice of his non-attorney immigration consultant and missed his scheduled hearing. See Singh-Bhathal v. INS, 170 F.3d 943, 946-47 (9th Cir.1999) (reliance on advice of non-attorney immigration consultant insufficient to demonstrate “exceptional circumstances” necessary to reopen in absentia proceedings).

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Uribe’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the IJ’s September 11, 2007, decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

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