Case Name: Nelson Manuel MENENDEZ-ACEVEDO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-27
Citations: 429 F. App'x 676
Docket Number: No. 09-72210
Parties: Nelson Manuel MENENDEZ-ACEVEDO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 429
Pages: 676–677

Head Matter:
Nelson Manuel MENENDEZ-ACEVEDO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-72210.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2011.
Filed April 27, 2011.
Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Sunah Lee, Trial, OIL, Michele Yvette Frances Sarko, Esquire, 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: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, 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
Nelson Manuel Menendez-Acevedo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his motion to reopen proceedings held in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Salta v. INS, 314 F.3d 1076, 1078 (9th Cir.2002), we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Menendez-Acevedo's motion to reopen because notices of hearing were mailed to both of the addresses Menendez-Acevedo gave to the immigration court and Menendez-Acevedo failed to provide persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of proper delivery of the notices. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A) (written notice shall be considered sufficient for purposes of an in absentia removal order if provided at the most recent address given by alien); Salta, 314 F.3d at 1079.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.