N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JUAN PAB LO ZAR

AGOZA, Pe t i tione r, v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS, III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-72346 Age n c y No. A095-189-417
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 Fe brua

ry 14, 2017 * * B e fore : GOODW IN, FARRIS, an d FER NANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Jua n Pa b l o Za ra g oz a , a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism i ssing his a p p e a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s orde r de ny ing his motion to re ope n re m o va l proc e e dings
c onduc te d in a

bse ntia . W e have jurisdic tion under 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w 

# FIL ED FEB 22 2017 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).for a

b use of disc re tion thede nia l of a m otion to re ope n, a

n d re v ie w de novo c onstitutiona

l c la im s. Mohamme d v . Gonzale s , 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th C ir. 2005). W e de ny

in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. The a ge n c y

did not a b u se its disc re tion or viola te due proc e ss in de ny ing Zara goz a ’ s m otion to re o p e n ba se d on a la c k of notic e , whe re the a ge nc y se nt a notic e of he aring by

re gula r m a il to Za

ra goz a ’ s la st known a ddre ss of re c ord, a nd Zara goz a fa ile d to providesuffic ie nt e vide nc e to ove rc om e the pre sum ption of prope r de live ry

of the notic e . Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (b)(5)(A) (“ [W ] ritte n notic e . . . provide d at the m ost re c e nt a ddre ss” give n by the a lie n “ s ha ll be suffic ie nt” for purpose s of c onduc t ing in a bse ntia re m ova l proc e e dings.); c

f. Salta v. IN

S, 314 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th C ir. 2002) (discussing e vide nc e suffic ie nt to overc o m e the pre s um ption of proper de live ry ); P opa v . Holde r , 571 F.3d 890, 897 (9th C ir. 2009) (“ Due proc e ss is sa t isfie d if se rvic e is c onduc te d in a m anne r re a s ona bly
c a lc ulat e d to e nsure tha

t notic e re a c he s the a l ie n.” (c ita t ion a nd quota tion m arks
om i tte d)). The a ge n c y

a l so did not a

buse its disc re t ion in deny ing Za ra g o z a ’ s m otion to
re ope n ba se d on e xc e ptiona l c irc um sta nc e s, whe re he file d it m ore tha n nine y e ars a fte r the date of his re m ova l orde r, se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii), a n d fa i le d to

1 4
- 7 2 3 4 6 2e 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). Zara goz a ’ s c onte ntion tha t the B IA viola

t e d due proc e s s by

not providing him with a tra nsc ript of proc e e dings fa i ls whe re he ha s not de m onstra te d pre judic e . Se eLata v . IN

S, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000); c f. Singh v . Holde r , 638 F.3d 1196, 1208 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ [I] n lie u of providing a tra nsc ript, theim

m igration
c ourt m ay re c ord [bond] he arings a

nd m ake the a

udio re c ordings a

va ila ble for
a ppe a l upon re que st.” ) The re c ord doe s not support Za ra goz a ’ s c onte ntions tha

t the a g e nc y

e nga ge d in spe c ulation a

nd fa c t-finding, missta

te d the re c ord, fa ile d

to c orre c tly

a pply the la w a nd c onside r e vide nc e , or did not suffic ie ntly e xpla i n its re a s oning. Se e N ajmabadi v. Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th C ir. 2010). W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r Zara goz a ’ s une xha uste d c o nte ntion
re ga rding his prior a

ttorne y ’ s Notic e of Appe aranc e . Tijani v . Holde r , 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th C ir. 2010). In light of our disposition, we do not re a c h Za

ra goz a ’ s re m a i ning
c onte ntions re g arding his prior c ounse l’ s a lle ge d ine ffe c tive a s sista n c e . PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 4
- 7 2 3 4 6 3