Case Name: Roger AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-16
Citations: 682 F. App'x 588
Docket Number: No. 15-71033
Parties: Roger AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 682
Pages: 588–588

Head Matter:
Roger AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-71033
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2017
Filed March 16, 2017
William J. Baker, Attorney, Moreno & Associates, Chula Vista, CA, for Petitioner
Elizabeth K. Fitzgerald-Sambou, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, 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
Roger Aguilar, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings and reissue its decision denying his appeal from an immigration judge's final order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Hernandez-Velasquez v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1073, 1077 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to reissue its August 2014 decision, where Aguilar acknowledged in his declaration that he received notice of the decision and he does not allege ineffective assistance of counsel. See Singh v. Napolitano, 649 F.3d 899, 901 (9th Cir. 2011) (the BIA has reissued decisions where an alien has shown lack of notice due to administrative error or ineffective assistance of counsel).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.