### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

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 a n d citizen of Ecuador, petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigratio n s Ap peals (BIA) dismissing her appeal of th e i m m igration judge’s (IJ) denial of her motion to reopen her deportation proceedings. After notice w a s s ent 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 U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Februa ry 15 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-60440 Document: 00511759888 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2012No. 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 mail e d to MaldonadoPadilla via certified mail to the following address: 514 Central Avenue, Westfield, New Jersey, 07090. The notice was returned though i n di c a t i ng Maldonado-Padilla “MOVED, LEFT NO ADDRESS.” As she did before the IJ and the BIA, Maldonado-Padilla relies on an “Appli c a t i on 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 Cent r al 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, wh i c h as the BIA noted, Maldonado-Padilla acknowledged she failed to do. Accordingly, she has failed to overcome the st r ong presumption of effective service at her last known address. See Matter of Grija l v a , 2 1 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 un t i m e ly. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(3)(A) (1994). Thus, Maldonado-Padilla has failed to show that the BIA abuse d i t s di s cretion in denying her motion to reopen. See Gomez-Palacios v. Holder , 560 F.3d 354, 358 (5th Cir. 200 9). Maldonado-Padilla also argues that the BIA should have reopened the deportation proceedings sua sponte. This court lacks jurisdiction, how e v e r , t o review the BIA’s decision not to reopen Maldonado-Padi ll a’s deportation
2 Case: 11-60440 Document: 00511759888 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2012No. 11-60440

proceedings sua sponte. See Enriquez-A l v arado v . As h c rof t , 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 p e t i t i o n for review is DENIED.

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