Case Name: Martir Boanerge LUCERO-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-25
Citations: 479 F. App'x 98
Docket Number: No. 10-73002
Parties: Martir Boanerge LUCERO-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 479
Pages: 98–99

Head Matter:
Martir Boanerge LUCERO-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-73002.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 17, 2012.
Filed July 25, 2012.
David Neumeister, Judith Seeds Miller, Law Office of David Neumeister, Bakersfield, CA, for Petitioner.
Oñ, Linda Y. Cheng, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mártir Boanerge Lucero-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Lo v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 934, 937 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Lucero-Hernandez's motion to reopen for failure to show lack of notice because the notice of hearing was sent by certified mail to his last known address. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2)(A), (c)(1); see also Arrieta v. I.N.S., 117 F.3d 429, 431 (9th Cir.1997) (notice by certified mail sent to an alien's last known address can be sufficient under the Act, even if no one signed for it).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.