Jose Vivanco-Rodriguez v. Loretta E. Lynch

604 F. App'x 557
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMay 19, 2015
Docket12-71254
StatusUnpublished

This text of 604 F. App'x 557 (Jose Vivanco-Rodriguez v. Loretta E. Lynch) 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
Jose Vivanco-Rodriguez v. Loretta E. Lynch, 604 F. App'x 557 (9th Cir. 2015).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Guadalupe Vivanco-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review *558 for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Arrieta v. INS, 117 F.3d 429, 430 (9th Cir.1997) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Vivanco-Rodriguez’s motion to reopen on the grounds that notice was proper and that Vivanco-Rodriguez failed to rebut the strong presumption of effective service arising from the service of his hearing notice by certified mail. See Matter of Grijalva, 21 I. & N. Dec. 27, 37 (BIA 1995) (“[W]here service of a notice of deportation proceeding is sent by certified mail through the United States Postal Service and there is proof of attempted delivery and notification of certified mail, a strong presumption of effective service arises.”); Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 822-23 (9th Cir.2011) (finding that a sworn affidavit claiming lack of notice was not sufficient to overcome the strong presumption of effective service where notice of hearing was sent via certified mail to alien’s last known address).

Vivanco-Rodriguez’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 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

Related

Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder
633 F.3d 818 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
GRIJALVA
21 I. & N. Dec. 27 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
604 F. App'x 557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jose-vivanco-rodriguez-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2015.