N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M ALKIT KAUR

and GUNDEEP KAUR , Pe t i tione rs, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 12-73834 Age n c y Nos. A075-310-294

A075-310-295 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 16, 2016 ** B e fore : LEAVY, B ER ZON, a nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s. M a lkit Ka

ur and Gunde e p Ka

ur, native s a

n d c itiz e ns of India , pe tition for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) orde r dismissing the i r a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing pe titione rs’ m otion to re ope n proc e e dings c onduc te d in a bse ntia . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252.



# FIL ED N OV 22 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).W e re vie wfor a buse of disc re tion the de n i a l of a m otion to re ope n, re vie wfor substa ntia l e vide nc e fa c tua l de t e rm inations, a nd re vie w de novo due proc e ss c la im s. Mohamme d

v . Gonzale

s , 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th C ir. 2005). W e de ny the p e tition for re v i e w. The a ge n c y

did not a b u se its disc re tion in deny ing pe titione rs’ m otion to re ope n , ba se d

on la c k of notic e , whe re substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the a g e nc y ’ s c onc lusion tha

t the notic e of the he a

ring wa s se nt to a

la w offic e of the ir c ounse l of re c o rd, a nd a n attorne y a ssoc iat e d with tha

t c ounse l of re c ord a

ppe are d at the he aring. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (a m otion to re ope n to re sc ind a n in a bse ntia re m ova l orde r m a

y be “ file d at a

ny tim e if the a lie n de m onstra te s tha t he or she did not re c e ive notic e ” of the he aring); 8 U.S.C . § 1229(a) (pe rm itting writte n notic e of tim e and pla c e of a he aring through ma il to a lie n’ s c ounse l of re c o rd); Garc ia v . IN

S, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th C ir. 2000) (se rvic e on c ounse l of re c o rd is sta

t utorily suffic ie nt). Nor did the a g e nc y

viola te pe titione rs’ due proc e ss rights, a s notic e of the ir he aring wa s re a sona

bly c a lc ulat e d to re a c h the m . Se e Popa v . Holde r , 571 F.3d 890, 897 (9th C ir. 2009) (“ Due proc e ss is sa tisfie d if se rvic e is c onduc te d in a m anne r re a sona

bly c a lc ulate d to e nsure tha

t notic e re a c h e s the a lie n” (c i tation a nd quota t ion m arks om itte d)). 1 2 - 7 3 8 3 4 2The a ge n c y did not a b u se its disc re tion in deny ing a s untim e ly pe titione rs’ m otion to re o pe n , ba s e d

on ine ffe c t ive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l, whe re pe titione rs file d the ir m o tion m ore tha

n nine y e ars a fte r the i r fina l orde rs of re m o va l, se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (se tting a 180-da y filing de a dline ), a

nd fa ile d to e sta blish thedue dilige nc e re quire d to wa rrant e quita

ble tolling of the

de a dline , se e Av agy an v . Holde r , 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th C ir. 2011) (e quita ble tolling is ava ila ble to a n a l ie n who is pre ve nte d from tim e ly filing a m otion to re ope n due to de c e ption, fra

ud or e rror, a s long a s the a lie n e xe rc ise s due dilige nc e in disc ove ring suc h c i rc um sta

nc e s). Pe titione rs’ c onte ntions tha t the B IA did not provide suffic ie nt re a soning and ove rlooke d

e vide nc e are not supporte d by the re c ord. Se e N

ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th C ir. 2010). In light of this disposition, we do not re a c h pe t itione rs’ re m a i ning c onte ntions. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 2 - 7 3 8 3 4 3