Rafael Antonio Rosales 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RAFAEL ANTONIO ROSALES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74412
Agency No. A072-520-753
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Rafael Antonio Rosales, 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 order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings held
FILED
JUN 11 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74412 2
in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of motions to reopen, Karapetyan v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1118,
1129 (9th Cir. 2008), and de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d
1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Rosales’ motion to
reopen because he had received both oral and written notice of his next scheduled
hearing at which he did not appear. See Khan v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 825, 828-29
(9th Cir. 2004) (notice proper where INS adhered to statutorily imposed procedural
requirements). Rosales’ due process claim therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204
F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due
process challenge).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --