Onyekachukwu Ngozi Enunwe 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ONYEKACHUKWU NGOZI ENUNWE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70777
Agency No. A096-514-425
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 24, 2013**
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Onyekachukwu Ngozi Enunwe, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s denial of her motion to reopen removal proceedings
conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
JUL 31 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-70777 2
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Popa v. Holder,
571 F.3d 890, 894 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Enunwe’s motion to
reopen where Enunwe failed to present evidence that she did not receive proper
notice of her hearing. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229(a)(1), 1229a(b)(5)(A) (written notice
is sufficient if mailed to the most recent address provided by the alien). It follows
that Enunwe’s due process claims fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th
Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
The agency also did not abuse its discretion in denying Enunwe’s motion to
reopen based on changed country conditions where she failed to present any
evidence in support of her claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Enunwe’s contention regarding asylum and
withholding of removal because she failed to raise these claims before the BIA,
and thereby failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft,
358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not
presented to the BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --