FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 13 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DOMINGO ALBERTO HUINAC- No. 10-70265
VICENTE,
Agency No. A070-201-354
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Domingo Alberto Huinac-Vicente, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to
reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is
*
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).
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
motion to reopen. Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 2009).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Huinac-Vicente’s motion
to reopen where the record demonstrates that he was personally served with an
Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing, written in both English and Spanish.
See 8 U.S.C. 1252b(a)(3) (1996); Khan v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 825, 828-29 (9th Cir.
2004) (notice proper where INS adhered to statutorily imposed procedural
requirements). In addition, Huinac-Vicente failed to submit any evidence to
support a claim that he is eligible for relief from removal. See 8 C.F.R. §
1003.23(b)(3).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Huinac-Vicente’s remaining contentions
because he failed to exhaust them before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 10-70265