Ceja v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Ceja v. Gonzales

167 F. App'x 670

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 17, 2006

DocketNo. 04-74155

StatusPublished

This text of 167 F. App'x 670 (Ceja v. Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ceja v. Gonzales, 167 F. App'x 670 (9th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Mario Segura Ceja, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Salta v. INS, 314 F.3d 1076, 1078 (9th Cir.2002), we deny the petition for review.

The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Segura Ceja’s motion to reopen because it is undisputed that the notice rescheduling his hearing was sent to his address of record, and that he did not timely notify the Immigration Court that he had moved. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.15(d)(2) (requiring alien to provide written notice within five days of any change of address).

Segura Ceja’s remaining contentions, including those alleging a denial of due process, lack merit.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Mario Segura Ceja, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Salta v. INS, 314 F.3d 1076, 1078 (9th Cir.2002), we deny the petition for review.

The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Segura Ceja’s motion to reopen because it is undisputed that the notice rescheduling his hearing was sent to his address of record, and that he did not timely notify the Immigration Court that he had moved. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.15(d)(2) (requiring alien to provide written notice within five days of any change of address).

Segura Ceja’s remaining contentions, including those alleging a denial of due process, lack merit.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 F. App'x 670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ceja-v-gonzales-ca9-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack