Oscar Vindel-Diaz, a.k.a. Edgardo Leiva-Diaz 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
OSCAR VINDEL-DIAZ, a.k.a. Edgardo
Leiva-Diaz,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70771
Agency No. A070-165-558
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Oscar Vindel-Diaz, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen deportation proceedings
FILED
FEB 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-70771 2
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 and review de novo
questions of law. Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 2009). We
deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Vindel-Diaz’s motion to
reopen, where Vindel-Diaz failed to demonstrate that he did not receive proper
notice of his hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C); see also 8 U.S.C. §
1252b(a)(2)(A), (c)(2) (repealed 1996) (explaining that written notice of the time
and place of proceedings is not required where an alien does not provide a mailing
address). It follows that Vindel-Diaz’s due process claims fail. See Lata v. INS,
240 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Vindel-Diaz’s contentions
regarding his eligibility for cancellation of removal or asylum.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --