Case ID: f-appx_124/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

Susana Martinez MEJIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-73300.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 23, 2005.
    
    Decided April 4, 2005.
    Michael S. Cabrera, Esq., Law Offices of Michael S. Cabrera, Huntington Park, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Emily A. Radford, Esq., Papu Sandhu, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before B. FLETCHER, TROTT and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The court sua sponte changes the docket to reflect that Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General, is the proper respondent. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect the above caption.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Susana Martinez Mejia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her motion to reopen her in absentia removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C § 1252. We for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir.2000), and we grant the petition for review.

We conclude that the IJ abused his discretion in finding that Mejia failed to rebut the presumption of delivery by regular mail because Mejia attested that she did not receive notice of her rescheduled hearing. See Salta v. INS, 314 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.2002) (stating that a petitioner’s assertion that she failed to receive notice of a hearing is sufficient to rebut the presumption of delivery).

We remand the case to the Board with instructions to remand to the IJ to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Mejia has rebutted the presumption of delivery of the notice of removal hearing, thereby entitling her to consideration of her motion to reopen.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.