FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHI WING CHAN, No. 11-72116
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-093-571
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012 **
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Chi Wing Chan, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted
in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
*
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).
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Popa v. Holder, 571 F.3d 890, 894 (9th
Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Chan’s motion to reopen
for failure to show lack of notice where the notice of hearing was sent by certified
mail to the most recent address provided by Chan. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2)(A),
(c)(1) (repealed 1996); see also Arrieta v. INS, 117 F.3d 429, 431 (9th Cir. 1997)
(per curiam) (“[N]otice by certified mail sent to an alien’s last known address can
be sufficient under the Act, even if no one signed for it.”). The agency also did not
abuse its discretion in concluding that Chan failed to present “substantial and
probative evidence” to overcome the strong presumption of effective service. See
Arrieta, 117 F.3d at 431.
Chan’s claim that his Order to Show Cause was legally defective is
unavailing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(1) (repealed 1996); see also Popa, 571 F.3d
at 896.
We do not address Chan’s contention regarding when he became aware of
his in absentia deportation order because the BIA did not rely on this ground. See
Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review is limited
to the grounds relied upon by the BIA).
2 11-72116
Chan’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-72116