Dongliang Wang v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DONGLIANG WANG,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73103
Agency No. A200-788-385
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Dongliang Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen and rescind his in absentia
removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
JUL 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400
F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Wang’s motion to reopen
on the ground that notice of his hearing was proper, where notice of his hearing
was sent by regular mail to the address he provided, was not returned as
undeliverable, and Wang failed to overcome the presumption of effective service
by regular mail. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (a motion to reopen to rescind an
in absentia removal order may be “filed at any time if the alien demonstrates that
he or she did not receive notice” of the hearing); Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d
981, 986 (9th Cir. 2007) (describing evidence sufficient to overcome presumption
of effective service by regular mail).
Nor did the agency violate Wang’s due process rights, as notice of his
hearing was reasonably calculated to reach him. Popa v. Holder, 571 F.3d 890,
897 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Due process is satisfied if service is conducted in a manner
reasonably calculated to ensure that notice reaches the alien,” even if the alien does
not actually receive the notice. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)).
12-73103 2

-- 2 of 3 --

To the extent Wang challenges the agency’s decision not to reopen sua
sponte, we lack jurisdiction to consider that contention. See Mejia-Hernandez v.
Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).
Wang’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
12-73103 3

-- 3 of 3 --