Julio Roberto Ascorra- Sarmiento; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JULIO ROBERTO ASCORRA-
SARMIENTO; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73665
Agency Nos. A070-957-555
A070-957-556
A070-957-559
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Julio Roberto Ascorra-Sarmiento, Betty Ascorra, and their son, natives and
citizens of Peru, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
FILED
SEP 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-73665 2
motion to reopen 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, Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011), and we
deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen for failure to show lack of notice where the notice of hearing was sent by
certified mail to their last known address. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2)(A), (c)(1)
(repealed); see also Arrieta v. INS, 117 F.3d 429, 431 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam)
(“[N]otice by certified mail sent to an alien’s last known address can be sufficient
under the Act, even if no one signed for it”).
The agency also did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion
to reopen as untimely where it was filed nearly eleven years after their order of
removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(iii)(A)(1) (an alien seeking to reopen and
rescind an in absentia deportation order based on exceptional circumstances must
file the motion within 180 days), and petitioners failed to establish that they
qualified for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at
678-80 (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who establishes that he
suffered from deception, fraud or error, and exercised due diligence in discovering
such circumstances).

-- 2 of 3 --

09-73665 3
Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unavailing.
We deny petitioners’ February 14, 2012, motion to remand to the agency to
present additional evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1); Altawil v. INS, 179 F.3d
791, 792-93 (9th Cir. 1999) (order).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --