Case: 12-60991 Document: 00512478771 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 12-60991 December 20, 2013
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
FATIMA BERNALDA HERNANDEZ-PARADA,
Petitioner
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A098 489 012
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
An immigration judge (IJ) ordered that Fatima Bernalda Hernandez-
Parada (Hernandez), a native and citizen of El Salvador, be removed in
abstentia. Hernandez now petitions for review of the decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) that dismissed her appeal of the IJ’s denial of her
motion to reopen her removal proceedings.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 12-60991 Document: 00512478771 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2013
No. 12-60991
Hernandez contends that she was not notified of the hearing that
resulted in the removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.23(b)(4)((ii). She acknowledges that a notice had been properly mailed
to the address in Fort Worth that she originally provided to the Immigration
and Naturalization Service, but she argues that the notice was never received.
The record, however, does not support a conclusion that the IJ’s application of
the presumption of delivery was “capricious, racially invidious, utterly without
foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather
than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” Singh v. Gonzales, 436
F.3d 484, 487 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted);
see Ghounem v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 740, 745 (5th Cir. 2004).
Additionally, we find no merit in the contention that the BIA abused its
discretion in dismissing Hernandez’s claim that changed country conditions in
El Salvador dictated reopening so that the removal order might be rescinded.
See § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(i). Contrary to the contention
that there was no discussion of Hernandez’s evidence, the record shows that
the IJ addressed that evidence, disagreeing with Hernandez’s interpretation
of it and finding no changed circumstances. Thus, Hernandez fails to show
that the immigration courts’ rulings did not “adequately convey the reasoning”
employed, Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 908 (5th Cir. 2002), or that the rulings
were capricious, irrational, or “utterly without foundation,” Singh, 436 F.3d at
487.
The petition for review is DENIED.
2