Case Name: Lidia CARRILLO-RECINOS, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-23
Citations: 623 F. App'x 359
Docket Number: No. 13-71094
Parties: Lidia CARRILLO-RECINOS, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 623
Pages: 359–359

Head Matter:
Lidia CARRILLO-RECINOS, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-71094.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Nov. 18, 2015.
Filed Nov. 23, 2015.
Susan Elizabeth Hill, Hill & Piibe, Immigration Attorneys, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Michael Christopher Heyse, Trial, OIL, 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: TASHIMA, OWENS, 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
Lidia Carrillo-Recinos, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's order denying her motion to rescind and reopen removal proceedings held in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and we review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Ha-mazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir.2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Carrillo-Recinos was personally served her Notice to Appear and received the required advisals. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1). Accordingly, the agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Carrillo-Recinos' motion to reopen based on lack of notice where her hearing notice was mailed to her last address provided. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A) (written notice is considered sufficient if sent to the most recent address provided).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Carrillo-Recinos' contention that the English-language documents she received in her removal proceedings did not satisfy due process, where Carrillo-Recinos failed to exhaust this contention before the agency. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an alien's administrative proceedings).
Carrillo-Recinos' remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.