Case Name: Rosa FRAGA-PUENTES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-21
Citations: 185 F. App'x 413
Docket Number: No. 05-60359
Parties: Rosa FRAGA-PUENTES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 185
Pages: 413–414

Head Matter:
Rosa FRAGA-PUENTES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-60359.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided June 21, 2006.
Angie N. N’Duka, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.
Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Elizabeth J. Stevens, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, No-rah Ascoli Schwarz, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Anne M. Estrada, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Dallas, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rosa Fraga-Puentes has filed a petition for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of her motion to reopen her removal proceeding. Fraga-Puentes was ordered removed in absentia when she failed to appear for her removal hearing.
Fraga-Puentes argues that the BIA abused its discretion in light of evidence that she failed to receive notice of the removal hearing. She also argues that the BIA's decision was an abuse of discretion because the lack of notice violated her due process rights.
We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and have determined, in view of the substantial evidence, that Fraga-Puentes, either actually or constructively, received the Notice to Appear at her father's address, that she did not thereafter provide any different address to which the notice of her removal hearing should be sent, and that the BIA therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion to reopen. See Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir.2001); Lara v. Trominski, 216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir.2000); see also In re G-Y-R, 23 I & N Dec. 181 (BIA 2001). In addition, the mailing of the notice of the hearing to the last address provided by Fraga-Puentes did not violate due process. See United States v. Estrada-Trochez, 66 F.3d 733, 735-36 (5th Cir.1995).
Accordingly, Fraga-Puentes's petition for review is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.