N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DOM INGO ALB E R TO HUINAC VIC ENTE, Pe titioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 11-71152 Age n c y No. A070-201-354 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 18, 2015 ** B e fore : TASHIM A , OW ENS, a nd FRIEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s. Dom ingo Albe rto Huina c -Vic e nte , a native and c itiz e n of Gua te m a l a , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r de ny ing his m otion to re ope n

de porta tion 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 for a buse of disc re tion thede nia l of



# FIL ED N OV 25 2015 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).a

m otion to re ope n a

nd re vie w de novo c la im s of due proc e ss viola tions. Mohamme d

v . Gonzale

s , 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th C ir. 2005). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in deny ing Huina c -Vinc e nte ’ s m otion to re ope n ba se d on la c k

of notic e . Pe rsona l se rvic e on Huina c -Vinc e nte of the Orde r to Show C a

use (“ OSC ” ) wa s va lid whe re the re wa s no sta tutory re quire m e nt that the OSC be ora lly transla te d. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252b(a)(3) (1996); K han v . Ashc roft, 374 F.3d 825, 828-29 (9th C ir. 2004) (notic e prope r whe re INS a d he re d to sta tutorily im pose d proc e dura l re quire m e nts a nd notic e wa s re a sona

bly c a lc ulat e d to inform

pe titioner of he aring). Huina c -Vinc e nte ’ s c onte ntion tha t he wa s pre judic e d by

the a bse nc e of ora l notic e a s wa s re q uire d unde r form e r 8 C .F.R . § 242.1(c ) (1996) is not persua sive . Se e Matte r of He rnande z , 21 I. & N. De c . 224, 226-27 (B IA 1996); se ealso K o hli v . Gonzale

s , 473 F.3d 1061, 1066-67 (9th C ir. 2007) (pe titioner m

ust de m onstra

te tha t he wa s pre

j udic e d by the a ge nc y ’ s viola tion of its own re gula

tion). Huinac -Vinc e nte ’ s re m a ining c o nte ntions re ga rding thesuffic ie n c y

of the OSC are una

va iling. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in deny ing the m otion to re ope n ba se d on ine ffe c tive a ssista

n c e of c ounse l whe re Huina c -Vinc e nte fa ile d to e sta blish

1 1 - 7 1 1 5 2 2pre

j udic e . Iturribarria v. IN S, 321 F.3d 889, 899-900 (9th C ir. 2003) (re quiring pre j udic e to pre va il on ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e c la im). Ac c ordingly , to the e x t e nt Huina c -Vinc e nte c o nte nds tha t his right to due proc e s s wa s viola

te d whe n the B IA de c line d to re ope n his c a s e , this c onte ntion fa ils. Se eLata v . IN

S, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000) (re quiring e rror and pre j udic e to pre va il on a

due proc e s s c la im). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 1 - 7 1 1 5 2 3