Case ID: f-appx_424/html/0650-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Martha Alicia CERNA AREBALO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-70831.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed March 25, 2011.
    Martha Alicia Cerna Arebalo, Riverside, CA, pro se.
    Juan Antonio Laguna, Law Offices of Juan A. Laguna, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner.
    Juria L. Jones, Trial, OIL, Don George Scroggin, Esquire, Trial Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-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: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Martha Alicia Cerna Arebalo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reissue the BIA’s previous decision denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo claims of due process violations. Hernandez-Velasquez v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1073, 1077 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying Cerna Arebalo’s motion to reissue, where it concluded that the evidence submitted was insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper mailing. See Singh v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1170, 1172-73 (9th Cir.2007) (BIA is obligated to consider and address the evidence submitted by petitioner); see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).

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