Jose Manuel Lopez-Rubio 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOSE MANUEL LOPEZ-RUBIO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73325
Agency No. A099-663-684
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 8, 2012**
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Jose Manuel Lopez-Rubio, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily
affirming an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen removal
proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
FILED
AUG 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-73325 2
We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen, Lin v.
Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Lopez-Rubio’s motion to
reopen based on lack of notice where the record shows that on February 17, 2006,
Lopez-Rubio was personally served with a Notice to Appear prior to his release
from detention, containing the time, date, and location of his hearing. See 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1229(a)(1), 1229a(b)(5).
The agency also did not abuse its discretion in denying Lopez-Rubio’s
motion to reopen based on changed country conditions, where Lopez-Rubio failed
to present evidence of a change in country conditions in El Salvador. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); Lin, 588 F.3d at 986.
Contrary to Lopez-Rubio’s contention, the BIA’s affirmance without
opinion of the immigration judge’s order does not constitute an abuse of discretion.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4); Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849-52
(9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --