N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SAR INGH HEYB EC YAN, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 13-70127 Age n c y No. A088-102-629 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 De c e m

be r 10, 2015 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GOULD a

nd B ER ZON, C irc uit Judge s, a

nd ZOUHAR

Y, *** Distric t

Judge . 

# FIL ED D EC 23 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). *** The Honora

ble Ja c k Zouha

ry , Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of Ohio, sitting by de s igna tion.Saringh 1 He y be c y an se e k s re vie w of the B IA’ s de nia l of he r m otion to re ope n im m igrat ion proc e e dings. The B IA’ s de c ision is re vie we d for a n a buse of disc re t ion. Se mbiring v . Gonzale s , 499 F.3d 981, 985 (9th C ir. 2007). “ The B IA a buse s its disc re tion whe n it a c t s a rbitra rily , irra tiona lly or c ontra ry to the la w.” Id. (inte rna l a lte ra t ions om i tte d) (quoting Mov

sisian v . Gonzale

s , 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th C i r. 2007)). He y be c y an m a inta ins the B IA a buse d its disc re tion by

de ny ing he r m otion to re ope n be c a use she did not re c e ive notic e of the he aring in whic h an im m igration judge orde re d he r re m ove d. She c onte nds the im m igration c ourt did not sen d notic e to the prope r a d dre s s. W e disa gre e . The im

m igration c ourt se nt the notic e of he aring to the

“ m a iling” a ddre s s He y

be c y an provide d. Notic e se nt to a n a lie n ’ s “ m ost re c e nt a ddre s s” is “ suffic ie nt” unde r the Im m igration a

nd Na tiona lity Ac t, s e e 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (b)(5)(A); 8 C .F.R . § 1208.2(c )(3)(ii), a nd a lso sa tisfie s due proc e ss, se e Popa v . Holde r , 571 F.3d 890, 897–98 (9th C ir. 2009). He y be c y an ha s not c ha lle nge d the pre sum

p tion of e ffe c tive de live ry . Se eSalta v . IN S , 314 F.3d 1076 (9th C ir. 2002).

1 In m any of the re c o rd doc um e nts, He y b e c y an’ s first na

m e is spe lle d “ Sarine h.” B e c a

use , howe ve r, this a

ppe a l is title d Saringh He y be c y an v . Ly nc h , we use the latte r spe lling. 2Although He y b e c y an m ay

not ha ve ac tually

re c e ive d notic e , in the se c irc um s ta nc e s she is c ha

rge d with ha

ving c onstruc tive ly

done so. Se e Popa , 571 F.3d at 897–98; In reG-Y-R- , 23 I. & N. De c . 181, 189 (B IA 2001). She wa s a dvise d of he r re sponsibility to ke e p the im

m igration c ourt a

pprise d of he r a ddre ss. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1229(a )(1)(F), (c ). She ha s not c ha lle nge d a s ine ffe c tive the a ssista nc e of Shira

k Khoja y an , the non-attorne y

re pre se n tative who a

ppe ars to have provide d the im

m igration c ourt with He y be c y a n’ s m a i ling a ddre s s. Nor doe s she dispute tha

t she did not file

a c ha nge of a ddre ss form or othe rwise notify the im m igration c ourt tha

t the m a iling a ddre ss Khoja y an provide d on he r be ha lf wa s inc o rre c t . Ac c ordingly , we c onc lude tha t the B IA’ s de c ision to de ny He y be c y an’ s m otion to re o pe n w a s not a rbitra ry , irra tiona l, or c ontra

ry to la w. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

3