Case ID: f-appx_234/html/0662-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Roy Quisaba DEBUQUE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-73874.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 5, 2007.
    
    Filed June 15, 2007.
    Maziar Razi, Esq., Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michael Jack Haney, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Dallas, TX, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Roy Quisaba Debuque, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, see Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.

In his motion to reopen, Debuque did not contest that he received the Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) and that the notice of hearing was sent by certified mail to his last known address. Accordingly, the agency did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to reopen. See In re Grijalva, 21 I. & N. Dec. 27, 32-34 (BIA 1995) (holding notice of hearing must be sent by certified mail to last known address); see also Chaidez v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 1079, 1083-84 (9th Cir. 2007) (requirement that OSC be delivered to “responsible person” at alien’s address does not extend to notices of hearing).

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