Florencio Figueroa-Bahena; Maria Victoria Figueroa; Lionel Figueroa 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
FLORENCIO FIGUEROA-BAHENA;
MARIA VICTORIA FIGUEROA;
LIONEL FIGUEROA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70220
Agency Nos. A095-195-924
A095-195-925
A095-195-926
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 10, 2010**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Florencio Figueroa-Bahena, Maria Victoria Figueroa, and Lionel Figueroa,
natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reissue the BIA’s
FILED
AUG 31 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70220 2
previous decision dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s order
denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reopen and de novo claims of due process violations. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311
F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying
petitioners’ motion to reissue, where it considered their evidence of non-receipt
and concluded that it was insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper mailing.
See Singh v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1170, 1172-73 (9th Cir. 2007) (BIA is obligated to
consider and address the evidence submitted by petitioner); see also Lata v. INS,
204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for petitioner to prevail on a
due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --