Case Name: Joaquin Ramon GUEVARA-ASCENCIO, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-20
Citations: 593 F. App'x 599
Docket Number: No. 14-2041
Parties: Joaquin Ramon GUEVARA-ASCENCIO, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
Judges: Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 593
Pages: 599–599

Head Matter:
Joaquin Ramon GUEVARA-ASCENCIO, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
No. 14-2041.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 12, 2015.
Filed: Feb. 20, 2015.
Joaquin Ramon Guevara-Ascencio, Huntington Park, CA, pro se.
Karen Yolanda Drummond, Carl H. McIntyre, Anthony John Messuri, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
El Salvadoran citizen Joaquin Ramon Guevara-Ascencio failed to appear for a deportation hearing in 1994, and an order was issued in absentia for his deportation. In 2012, Guevara-Ascencio sought to reopen the matter, claiming that he had not received notice of the deportation hearing, and arguing that he was eligible for asylum. The Immigration Judge denied relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed. After careful review, we find no abuse of discretion. See Kanyi v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1087, 1089-90 (8th Cir.2005) (standard of review). The record before the Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals contains evidence giving rise to a strong presumption that the hearing notice was delivered to Guevara-Ascencio by certified mail, and he has not rebutted that presumption. He also failed to present any previously unavailable evidence of changed country conditions for purposes of reopening asylum proceedings. See Li Yun Lin v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1164, 1165 (8th Cir.2008) (standard of review).
Accordingly, we deny the petition.