Case Name: Malik Dil AWAN, AKA Dil Muhammad, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-30
Citations: 699 F. App'x 743
Docket Number: No. 14-72929
Parties: Malik Dil AWAN, AKA Dil Muhammad, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 699
Pages: 743–744

Head Matter:
Malik Dil AWAN, AKA Dil Muhammad, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-72929
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 23, 2017
Filed October 30, 2017
Garish Sann, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Garish Sarin, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner
Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Virginia Lum, Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, 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
Malik Dil Awan, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order 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. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Awan's motion to reopen, based on lack of notice, where Awan was personally served with two prior hearing notices containing his address of record, filed a letter with the court indicating he would be leaving the country prior to his hearing date, and timely appealed the immigration judge's in absentia order. See Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981, 985 (9th Cir. 2007) (BIA does not abuse its discretion unless it acted "arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); cf. Khan v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 825, 828-29 (9th Cir. 2004) (actual notice is sufficient to meet due process requirements). Based on the evidence in this case, Awan has not shown that the BIA erred in determining his statement in support of the motion to reopen was inherently unbelievable. See Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 678-79 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.