Prodigios Sandoval-Paniagua v. Jefferson Sessions , 691 F. App'x 482 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PRODIGIOS SANDOVAL-PANIAGUA, No. 15-71066
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-956-639
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2017**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,
Circuit Judges.
Prodigios Sandoval-Paniagua, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her motion to reopen removal
proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and
review de novo questions of law. Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981, 985 (9th
Cir. 2007). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Sandoval-Paniagua’s
motion to reopen based on lack of notice, where the record establishes that she
received the notice to appear (“NTA”), and the notice of hearing was subsequently
mailed to the last address on record. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229(a)(1)-(2), 1229a(b)(5);
8 C.F.R. § 1003.15(d). Any irregularities in the service of the NTA were resolved
by Sandoval-Paniagua’s concession that she actually received the NTA that was
taped to her door. Cf. Khan v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 825, 828-29 (9th Cir. 2004)
(actual notice is sufficient to meet due process requirements). There is no statutory
or regulatory requirement that the contents of the NTA be explained to a petitioner,
see Flores-Chavez v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1150, 1155 n.4 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Current
law does not require that the Notice to Appear . . . be in any language other than
English.”), and Sandoval-Paniagua cites no authority to support her contention that
an incomplete or improperly executed certificate of service is sufficient to warrant
reopening based on lack of notice.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Sandoval-Paniagua’s unexhausted
contentions regarding the IJ’s alleged failure to address the sufficiency of the NTA,
2 15-71066
and purported irregularities as to the contents and mailing of the NTA. See Tijani
v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 15-71066