NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 2 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA BERTHA MORALES-APARICIO, No. 16-70665
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-541-465
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Maria Bertha Morales-Aparicio, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen removal
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 Ninth Circuit Rule 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 the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Sembiring v.
Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981, 986 (9th Cir. 2007), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Morales-Aparicio’s motion
to reopen to rescind her deportation order where the hearing notice was sent by
regular mail to the post office box provided by Morales-Aparicio, there is no
evidence that mail sent there by DHS was ever returned as undeliverable, and her
evidence is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of delivery. Cf. Sembiring v.
Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981, 988-90 (9th Cir. 2007) (describing evidence sufficient to
overcome presumption of effective service).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 16-70665