IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-60440

Summary Calendar

LUISA MALDONADO-PADILLA,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A073 221 834

Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Luisa Maldonado-Padilla, a native and citizen of Ecuador, petitions for

review of a final order of the Board of Immigrations Appeals (BIA) dismissing

her appeal of the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of her motion to reopen her

deportation proceedings. After notice was sent to the address provided by

Maldonado-Padilla by certified mail, Maldonado-Padilla failed to appear for her

hearing in February 1995 and was ordered deported in absentia. Before the BIA

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 15, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-60440 Document: 00511759888 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2012
No. 11-60440

and the IJ, Maldonado-Padilla sought reopening of her deportation proceedings

on the basis that she did not receive notice of the hearing.

The record reflects that the hearing notice was mailed to MaldonadoPadilla via certified mail to the following address: 514 Central Avenue,

Westfield, New Jersey, 07090. The notice was returned though indicating

Maldonado-Padilla “MOVED, LEFT NO ADDRESS.” As she did before the IJ

and the BIA, Maldonado-Padilla relies on an “Application to Redetermine

Custody Status” in support of her argument that she notified her address to be

“51 Elio Street New Jersey” upon her release from custody. However, a review

of this document, which is not dated, indicates that Maldonado-Padilla was still

in custody in Texas when she provided the Elio Street address as her intended

address upon release. In all of the documents executed when Maldonado-Padilla

was actually released on bond, she provided the Central Avenue address in

Newark as her intended address upon release. Furthermore, in a “Notification

Requirement For Change of Address, Maldonado-Padilla indicated the Central

Avenue address in Newark as her mailing address. This form also advised

Maldonado-Padilla, in English and Spanish, of her obligation to notify the court

of any change in address, which as the BIA noted, Maldonado-Padilla

acknowledged she failed to do. Accordingly, she has failed to overcome the

strong presumption of effective service at her last known address. See Matter

of Grijalva, 21 I&N Dec. 27, 33-34 (BIA 1995). Further, because MaldonadoPadilla’s motion to reopen was filed more than 180 days following the issuance

of her deportation order, a motion to reopen due to exceptional circumstances

was untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(3)(A) (1994). Thus, Maldonado-Padilla

has failed to show that the BIA abused its discretion in denying her motion to

reopen. See Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 358 (5th Cir. 2009).

Maldonado-Padilla also argues that the BIA should have reopened the

deportation proceedings sua sponte. This court lacks jurisdiction, however, to

review the BIA’s decision not to reopen Maldonado-Padilla’s deportation

2

Case: 11-60440 Document: 00511759888 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2012
No. 11-60440

proceedings sua sponte. See Enriquez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 246, 249-50

(5th Cir. 2004); Lopez-Dubon v. Holder, 609 F.3d 642, 647 (5th Cir. 2010), cert.

denied, 131 S. Ct. 2150 (2011). Accordingly, Maldonado-Padilla’s petition for

review is DENIED.

3

Case: 11-60440 Document: 00511759888 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/15/2012