Case ID: f-appx_556/html/0589-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rosa Isela CORTEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-73272.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Feb. 24, 2014.
    Smirna Ayala, Law Offices of Ronzio & Associates, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Nancy Canter, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rosa Isela Cortez-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of her motion to reopen deportation proceedings held in ab-sentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Chete Juarez v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 944, 947 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Cortez-Rodriguez’s motion to reopen for failure to show lack of notice where the government demonstrated proper service of the Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) and the Notice of Hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(l), (a)(2)(A), (c)(1) (repealed 1996); see also Chaidez v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 1079, 1085 (9th Cir.2007) (“For OSCs, service was proper only if the INS established that the return receipt was signed by the alien or a responsible person at the alien’s address.”); Arrieta v. INS, 117 F.3d 429, 431 (9th Cir.1997) (per curiam) (“[Njotice [of hearing] by certified mail sent to an alien’s last known address can be sufficient under the Act, even if no one signed for it.”).

Cortez-Rodriguez’s remaining contentions are unsupported by the record.

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