Francisco Soto-Contreras v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO SOTO-CONTRERAS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74383
Agency No. A070-826-742
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Soto-Contreras, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to reopen
deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-74383 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reopen, Salta v. INS, 314 F.3d 1076, 1078 (9th Cir. 2002), and we review de novo
due process claims, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny the
petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Soto-Contreras’ motion
to reopen as untimely, as it was filed more than thirteen years after his final order
of removal and he has not established a lack of notice. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.23(b)(4)(iii). The record indicates that Soto-Contreras received his Order
to Show Cause, that he was informed in Spanish that he would receive a hearing
notice, that he understood he must provide the immigration court with written
notice of his change of address, see 8 C.F.R. § 3.15(c) (1994), and that the hearing
notice was sent by certified mail to his last provided address. See 8 U.S.C. §
1252b(c)(1) (1995) (written notice is sufficient if sent to the most recent address
provided by alien); see also Matter of Grijalva, 21 I. & N. Dec. 27, 32-34 (BIA
1995) (proof of actual service or receipt of the notice by the respondent is not
required).
Due process was satisfied because “[t]he method of service was reasonably
calculated to ensure that notice reached [Soto-Contreras].” See Farhoud v. INS,
122 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir. 1997).

-- 2 of 3 --

08-74383 3
To the extent we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision
not to reopen proceedings, the BIA acted within its broad discretion in declining to
reopen proceedings under 8 C.F. R. § 1003.2(a).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --