Case ID: f-appx_474/html/0559-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Santos VENTURA-FLORES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-71885.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed July 6, 2012.
    Marc Karlin, Karlin & Karlin, APC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Stuart Nickum, Trial, Oil, David V. Ber-nal, Assistant Director, U.S. Department Of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Santos Ventura-Flores, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in ab-sentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Popa v. Holder, 571 F.3d 890, 894 (9th Cir.2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Ventura-Flores’ motion to reopen because it is undisputed that the written notice of the hearing was mailed to the most recent address provided by Ventura-Flores. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229(c).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Ventu-ra-Flores’ unexhausted claim that his due process rights were violated. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). Ventura-Flores’ remaining contentions are unavailing.

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