Case Name: Alex Renberto FLORES RUBIO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-05
Citations: 427 F. App'x 580
Docket Number: No. 09-72354
Parties: Alex Renberto FLORES RUBIO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 427
Pages: 580–581

Head Matter:
Alex Renberto FLORES RUBIO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-72354.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2011.
Filed April 15, 2011.
Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Lindsay Brooke Glauner, Esquire, Trial, 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
Alex Renberto Flores Rubio, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir.2009). We deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying Flores Rubio's motion to reopen because Flores Rubio presented insufficient evidence to overcome the presumption that his hearing notice was properly delivered via regular mail. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii); see also Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981, 988 (9th Cir.2007) ("The test for whether an alien has produced sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of effective service by regular mail is practical and commonsensical rather than rigidly formulaic.").
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.