Case ID: f-appx_583/html/0640-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Victor Manuel DELGADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-73571.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 11, 2014.
    
    Filed July 15, 2014.
    Gary Finn, Law Offices of Gary Finn, Indio, CA, for Petitioner.
    Oil, Matthew Allan Spurlock, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Victor Delgado missed his immigration hearing because he didn’t see the hearing notice until it was too late. He didn’t see the notice until it was too late because he failed to check his mail regularly. The Immigration Judge ordered him removed in absentia and denied Delgado’s later motion to reopen. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal. Now Delgado petitions for review.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(1) and 1229a(b)(5)(D) (limiting our review to, as relevant here, the “validity of the notice provided to the alien” and “the reasons for the alien’s absence” from the hearing). Here, the BIA adopted the IJ’s decision, adding comments, so we review both decisions. Lopez-Cardona v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1110, 1111 (9th Cir.2011). That review is for abuse of discretion. Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir.2009). Finding none, we deny the petition.

Delgado makes two arguments. First, he argues that he should have been allowed to receive notice at his post office box. We agree with the BIA and the IJ that this argument fails. Notice is presumptively adequate if mailed to the last address provided by the alien. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A). Delgado admits that “notice of his removal hearing was properly sent,” and the cases he cites—Alrefae v. Chertoff, 471 F.3d 353, 356-57 (2d Cir.2006), and Joshi v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 732, 735 (7th Cir.2004)—are distinguishable. Both involve aliens arguing that they didn’t receive properly mailed notice. Delgado, on the other hand, admits receipt.

Second, Delgado argues that exceptional circumstances excuse his failure to appear. Exceptional circumstances include only those “beyond control of the alien.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(l). Here, Delgado admits that — even though he knew that notice was on the way — he could have, but didn’t, check his own mail regularly.

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.