Case Name: Laura REYES-ORTIZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-10
Citations: 420 F. App'x 726
Docket Number: No. 08-71652
Parties: Laura REYES-ORTIZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 420
Pages: 726–727

Head Matter:
Laura REYES-ORTIZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-71652.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed March 10, 2011.
Patrick Joseph Sandoval, Esquire, Gallagher Sandoval, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of The District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of The District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, 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
Laura Reyes-Ortiz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her 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. Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Reyes-Ortiz's motion to reopen based on lack of notice where the record establishes that she was personally served with an Order to Show Cause ("OSC") and Notice of Hearing, written in both English and Spanish. There was no statutory requirement that the OSC be orally translated. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2), (3) (1995); see also Matter of Hernandez, 21 I. & N. Dec. 224, 226-27 (BIA 1996).
Reyes-Ortiz's remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.