Razo/reyes v Holder , 392 F. App'x 569 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           AUG 18 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JOEL REYES RAZO; ANA LUISA                       No. 08-70633
    REYES,
    Agency Nos. A095-301-539
    Petitioners,                                  A095-301-540
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted May 25, 2010 **
    Before:        CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    Joel Reyes Razo and Ana Luisa Reyes, natives and citizens of Mexico,
    petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
    denying their motion to reissue. We have jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Cano-Merida v.
    INS, 
    311 F.3d 960
    , 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we deny the petition for review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the Reyes’ motion to reissue
    because the record supports the BIA’s finding that the BIA fulfilled its statutory
    duty of service by mailing notice of its April 6, 2007, decision to the Reyes’
    address of record, see Singh v. Gonzales, 
    494 F.3d 1170
    , 1172 (9th Cir. 2007)
    (BIA fulfills statutory duty of service by properly mailing decision to alien), and
    the BIA did not act arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law by concluding that
    Reyes Razo’s declaration in support of the motion alleging nonservice was not
    sufficient to rebut the presumption of effective service, cf. id.(remanding to BIA to
    determine weight of sworn affidavits of nonreceipt by alien and counsel); Singh v.
    INS, 
    295 F.3d 1037
    , 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (reversing denial of motion to reopen if it
    is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                   08-70633
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-70633

Citation Numbers: 392 F. App'x 569

Judges: Canby, Thomas, Fletcher

Filed Date: 8/18/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024