FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 25 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SURESHBHAI RANCHHODJI AHIR, No. 11-73643
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-122-332
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2013**
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Sureshbhai Ranchhodji Ahir, a native and citizen of India, 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.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We review 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 Ahir’s motion to reopen
on the ground that Ahir failed to rebut the strong presumption of effective service
arising from the service of his hearing notice by certified mail. See id. at 431;
Matter of Grijalva, 21 I. & N. Dec. 27, 37 (BIA 1996).
Ahir’s contention that the agency erred by ignoring evidence is not
supported by the record. Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 987-88 (9th Cir. 2009)
(although the BIA must consider a petitioner’s evidence, “it need not expressly
refute on the record every single piece of evidence”).
It follows that the agency did not violate Ahir’s due process rights by
denying the motion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
Ahir’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 11-73643