Joel Flores v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 17 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOEL RICARDO FLORES, No. 10-71474
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-641-007
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2013 **
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Joel Ricardo Flores, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings
conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
*
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).
for an abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen. Cano-Merida
v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Flores’s motion to reopen
where notice of the deportation hearing was sent by certified mail to Flores’
address of record, the same address where Flores had received the Order to Show
Cause. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(1) (repealed) (written notice shall be considered
sufficient if provided at the most recent address provided by respondent). Flores
has not provided any “substantial and probative evidence” to rebut the presumption
of proper service. See Arrieta v. INS, 117 F.3d 429, 431 (9th Cir. 1997) (per
curiam).
In light of our conclusion, we decline to address Flores’s contention that the
BIA improperly found that he did not act with due diligence.
Flores’s argument that the BIA ignored his argument that actual service is
required is belied by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 10-71474