Case Name: Maria Alba RODRIGUEZ DE ORELLANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-04
Citations: 360 F. App'x 952
Docket Number: No. 07-70466
Parties: Maria Alba RODRIGUEZ DE ORELLANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 360
Pages: 952–953

Head Matter:
Maria Alba RODRIGUEZ DE ORELLANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-70466.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Jan. 4, 2010.
Alexander Nassif Lopez, Esq., Law Offices of Alexander N. Lopez & Associates, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, 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
Maria Alba Rodriguez De Orellana, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's order denying her motion to reopen deportation proceedings held in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez De Orellana's motion to reopen because she failed to establish reasonable cause for her absence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b) (repealed 1992).
We lack jurisdiction to review Rodriguez De Orellana's contention that she was denied due process because she did not receive a Spanish version of the notice of hearing because she did not exhaust this contention before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.