NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LETICIA MENDEZ, No. 18-70105
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-934-597
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Leticia Mendez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s order denying her motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in
absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Martinez-Hernandez v. Holder, 778
*
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).
F.3d 1086, 1088 (9th Cir. 2015). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Mendez’s motion to
reopen based on lack of notice, where she did not sufficiently show that she did not
refuse service of the notice of hearing, and therefore did not rebut the presumption
of effective service. See Arrieta v. INS, 117 F.3d 429, 432 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[I]f
[petitioner] can establish that her mailing address has remained unchanged, that
neither she nor a responsible party working or residing at that address refused
service, and that there was nondelivery or improper delivery by the Postal Service,
then she has rebutted the presumption of effective service.”). In so concluding, we
do not consider Mendez’s unexhausted contentions regarding the United States
Postal Service. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court
lacks jurisdiction to consider contentions not presented in an alien’s administrative
proceedings before the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 18-70105