NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
MARTIN SANCHEZ-DELGADILLO, No. 10-73593
Petitioner, Agency No. A092-340-968
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 8, 2012 **
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Martin Sanchez-Delgadillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen
*
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).
deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d
889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), we grant the petition for review and remand for further
proceedings.
The agency abused its discretion in denying Sanchez-Delgadillo’s motion to
reopen on the ground that he failed to establish lack of notice. The record did not
contain any proof of attempted service or notice of certified mail for Sanchez-
Delgadillo’s April 27, 1995, notice of hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2)(B)
(1995) (notice of hearing shall be given in person or sent by certified mail); Matter
of Grijalva, 21 I. & N. Dec. 27, 37 (BIA 1995) (certified mail required for notices
of hearing sent by mail in deportation proceedings). We therefore remand to the
BIA to determine whether Sanchez-Delgadillo had actual notice of his April 27,
1995, hearing. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
In light of our disposition, we need not reach Sanchez-Delgadillo’s
remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
2 10-73593