Case Name: Selvin A. AVILA AMEZQUITA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-02
Citations: 435 F. App'x 635
Docket Number: No. 09-72582
Parties: Selvin A. AVILA AMEZQUITA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 435
Pages: 635–635

Head Matter:
Selvin A. AVILA AMEZQUITA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-72582.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2011.
Filed June 2, 2011.
Alejandro Garcia, Law Offices of Alejandro Garcia, Commerce, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Drew Brinkman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, 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
Selvin A. Avila Amezquita, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's denial of his motion to reopen proceedings held in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Arrieta v. INS, 117 F.3d 429, 430 (9th Cir.1997) (per curiam), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Avila Amezquita's motion to reopen where the record reflects that the hearing notice was sent by certified mail to Avila Amezquita's address of record and Avila Amezquita did not provide any evidence to rebut the strong presumption of effective service. See id. at 431 ("[Njotice 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.