NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 04 2016
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
TOMAS NUNEZ-FLORES,
No. 13-72103
Petitioner,
Agency No. A077-133-687
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted February 12, 2016
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and ADELMAN, District
Judge.**
Petitioner Tomas Nunez-Flores seeks judicial review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ refusal to reopen and rescind an in absentia removal order. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). The Board did not abuse its discretion in determining that,
because petitioner failed to provide a valid mailing address, written notice of his
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Lynn S. Adelman, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting by designation.
removal hearing was not required. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(2)(B); 8 C.F.R. §
1003.26(d); see also Velasquez-Escovar v. Holder, 768 F.3d 1000, 1004 (9th Cir.
2014) (explaining that, in order retain their right to notice, aliens must provide an
address at which they may be contacted regarding the removal proceeding). The
Postal Service returned the hearing notice with the notation, “No Mail Receptacle,
Unable to Forward,” which means the “Addressee failed to provide a receptacle for
receipt of mail.” http://pe.usps.com/archive/html/dmmarchive0810/F010.htm (last
visited Feb. 22, 2016). Petitioner relies on Sabir v. Gonzales, 421 F.3d 456 (7th Cir.
2005) to argue that he was not at fault for the mail delivery failure. However, unlike
the alien in Sabir, petitioner presented no evidence of mail delivery problems at his
residence (e.g., that someone stole or vandalized his mailbox or bad weather knocked
it down), and the record shows that other documents mailed by immigration
authorities to the address petitioner provided were returned with this same notation,
which supports the finding that petitioner failed to provide an address where he could
receive mail.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2