Juan Jose Antonio Lopez-Lopez 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NHY/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN JOSE ANTONIO LOPEZ-LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71377
Agency No. A072-992-899
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Juan Jose Antonio Lopez-Lopez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

NHY/Research 07-71377 2
deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen,
Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), 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 record indicates that Lopez-Lopez received the Order to Show Cause
informing him that 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 the address he last provided. Accordingly, the IJ did
not abuse her discretion in denying Lopez-Lopez’s motion to reopen even though
the hearing notice was returned to the immigration court. 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 In re 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 [Lopez-Lopez].” See Farhoud v. INS, 122
F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir. 1997).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --