Case Name: Arturo Alejandro VAZQUEZ-BERMUDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-24
Citations: 423 F. App'x 674
Docket Number: No. 09-70126
Parties: Arturo Alejandro VAZQUEZ-BERMUDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 423
Pages: 674–674

Head Matter:
Arturo Alejandro VAZQUEZ-BERMUDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-70126.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
March 24, 2011.
Arturo Alejandro Vazquez-Bermudez, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
Justin Robert Markel, Trial, OIL, DOJ-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: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, 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
Arturo Alejandro Vazquez-Bermudez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his motion to reopen removal 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. Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir.2009). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because Vazquez-Bermudez presented insufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of effective service and thereby failed to demonstrate that he did not receive his notice to appear and notice of hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii); cf. Salta v. INS, 314 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.2002) (petitioner rebuts presumption where she has actually initiated a proceeding to obtain a benefit, has appeared at a prior hearing, and provides a sworn affidavit that neither she nor a responsible party residing at her address received the notice).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.