Case Name: Anil Keshev PATEL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-29
Citations: 442 F. App'x 253
Docket Number: No. 09-72893
Parties: Anil Keshev PATEL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 442
Pages: 253–254

Head Matter:
Anil Keshev PATEL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-72893.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed June 29, 2011.
Nicholas John Mundy, Esquire, Nicholas J. Mundy, Esq., Brooklyn, NY, for Petitioner.
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: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, 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
Anil Keshev Patel, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absen-tia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Arrieta v. INS, 117 F.3d 429, 430 (9th Cir.1997) (per curiam) and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Patel's motion to reopen to rescind his deportation order because the hearing notice was sent by certified mail to the address last provided by Patel and he failed to rebut the presumption of effective service. See id. at 431 ("[Njotice by certi- fled mail sent to an alien's last known address can be sufficient under the Act, even if no one signed for it."); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2) & (a)(1)(F) (1994).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.