N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SUSANA AGUILAR -HER NANDEZ, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 14-70889 Age n c y No. A089-770-968 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 M arc h 15, 2016 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, LEAVY, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Susa na Aguila r-He rnande z , 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’ orde r sum m arily a ffirm ing a

n im m igration judge ’ s de nia l of he r m otion to re ope n re m o va l proc e e dings c onduc te d in a

bse ntia . Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e



# FIL ED MAR 24 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 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).re vie w for a

buse of disc re t ion the de nia l of a m otion to re o pe n. C

e l is-C a ste llano v . Ashc roft , 298 F.3d 888, 890 (9th C ir. 2002). W e de ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt 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 Aguila r-He rnan de z ’ s m otion to re o pe n a

nd re sc i nd he r re m ova l orde r for fa i lure to e sta b lish la c k of notic e , whe re she fa ile d to providethe im m igration c ourt with he r ne w a ddre ss a fte r she m ove d in 2011. 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (b)(5)(B ) (“ No writte n notic e sha ll be re quire d unde r subpa

ra gra ph (A) if the a lie n ha s fa ile d to providethe a ddre s s re quire d unde r se c tion 1229(a )(1)(F) of this title .” ). Ac c ordingly , AguilarHe rnande z ’ s c o nte ntion tha t she did not re c e ive notic e of the he aring doe s not c om pe l the finding tha

t she e sta blishe d e x c e ptiona l c irc um sta

n c e s for he r fa ilure to a ppe ar. S e e 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (b)(5)(C )(i); C e lis-C aste llano , 298 F.3d a

t 892 (a pply ing a tota lity of the c irc um sta

nc e s te st to de te rm ine whe the r e xc e ptiona l c irc um s ta nc e s we re pre se nt). He r due proc e ss c la im tha t notic e wa s not re a sona

bly c a lc ulat e d to re a c h h e r a lso fa ils. Se ePopa v . Holde r , 571 F.3d 890, 898 (9th C ir. 2009). The a ge n c y

did not a b u se its disc re tion in deny ing Aguila r-He rnan de z ’ s m otion to re o pe n t o a

pply for ne w re lie f, whe re she fa ile d to submit a ny a pplic ations for re lie f with supporting doc um e ntation. Se e 8 C .F.R . 1 4 - 7 0 8 8 9 2§ 1003.23(b)(3) (“Any m otion to re ope n for the purpose of a c ting on a n a pplic at ion for re lie f m

ust be a c c om

pa nie d by the a ppropria te a pplic ation for re lie f an d a ll supporting docum e nts.” ). W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r Aguila r-He rnande z ’ s une xha

uste d c onte ntion tha

t she is e ligiblefor c anc e lla tion of re m o va l. Se e Tijani v . Holde r , 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th C ir. 2010). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t. C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge , disse nting: I re spe c tfully disse nt. Pe titione r file d a tim e ly m otion to re ope n a

nd a n upda te d a ddre ss with the

De pa rtm e nt of Hom e la

nd Se c urity . B e c a

use the De pa

rtm e nt ha d a c tua l notic e of pe titione r’ s c orre c t a ddre ss and the gove rnm e nt would not ha ve be e n pre

judic e d by

re o pe n i ng, I would hold that it wa s a n a buse of disc re tion to deny the m otion to re ope n.

1 4 - 7 0 8 8 9 3