Case Name: Josaia SARO, aka Joe Tagiciverata, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-04
Citations: 621 F. App'x 510
Docket Number: No. 10-73598
Parties: Josaia SARO, aka Joe Tagiciverata, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and GEORGE, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 621
Pages: 510–511

Head Matter:
Josaia SARO, aka Joe Tagiciverata, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-73598.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 1, 2015.
Filed Nov. 4, 2015.
Joel Henry Wolff, Law Offices of Joel H. Wolff, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, Tiffany L. Walters, Trial, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and GEORGE, Senior District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Lloyd D. George, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Josaia Saro, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of his 2009 motion to reopen a 2002 in absentia removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Saro argues that the Board abused its discretion by holding that he received proper notice of his rescheduled hearing. However, the immigration court satisfied both the statute and due process by mailing the notice of changed hearing to the exact address provided by Saro in his written motion to change venue. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A); Popa v. Holder, 571 F.3d 890, 897-98 (9th Cir.2009).
Nor did the BIA abuse its discretion by holding that Saro's motion to reopen to seek adjustment of status was untimely because it was filed seven years after the final removal order. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C), formerly codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C) (2002); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1); Matter of Monges-Garcia, 25 I. & N. Dec. 246, 250-51 (BIA 2010).
We lack jurisdiction to consider, and therefore dismiss, Saro's ineffective assistance of counsel claim because it was not raised to the Board. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.