Case Name: SHING-TING YAO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-24
Citations: 323 F. App'x 626
Docket Number: No. 06-75354
Parties: SHING-TING YAO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 323
Pages: 626–627

Head Matter:
SHING-TING YAO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75354.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 13, 2009.
Filed April 24, 2009.
See also 171 Fed.Appx. 73.
Bart Klein, Law Offices of Bart Klein, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Corey Leigh Farrell, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel Phoenix, Esquire, Office of the District Director, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Shing-Ting Yao, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law including claims of due process violations, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.
On remand, the BIA considered Yao's contention that his in absentia deportation order should be rescinded because a hearing notice was delivered to an address different from the address on file for him. The BIA properly concluded Yao was not prejudiced when the hearing notice was mailed to his address on file but was delivered to a different address, because the address on file was not Yao's current address, and he failed to provide the Immigration Court with his current address. See Farhoud v. INS, 122 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir.1997) (due process is satisfied if service is conducted in a manner reasonably calculated to ensure that notice reaches the alien).
The BIA was bound by the scope of our remand in No. 04-75726 and did not err in refusing to entertain additional issues. See Mendez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1168, 1173 (9th Cir.2006).
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.