Luz Elena Catalan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LUZ ELENA CATALAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-72182
Agency No. A070-962-154
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.
Luz Elena Catalan, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of
the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration
judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen her deportation proceedings held in
absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of
FILED
JUL 31 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

12-72182 2
discretion the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen, Flores-Chavez v. Ashcroft,
362 F.3d 1150, 1154-55 (9th Cir. 2004), and review de novo due process claims,
Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition
for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Catalan’s motion to
reopen alleging a lack of notice and seeking to apply for suspension of deportation
under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”),
Pub. L. No. 105-100, 111 Stat. 2160 (1997). Catalan filed her motion beyond the
ordinary motions deadline of September 30, 1996, and the special deadline of
September 11, 1998, for NACARA motions, see 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.23(b)(1),
1003.43(e)(1), and Catalan’s signature acknowledging receipt of an order to show
cause notifying her in English and Spanish of her rights and obligations, the time
and place of her deportation hearing, and the consequences of failing to appear
establishes that she received adequate notice of her deportation proceedings, see
Flores-Chavez, 362 F.3d at 1155-56 (“[I]n order to receive generally adequate
notice, an alien must be informed, in a language he understands, of his rights and
responsibilities in regard to the deportation hearing, the time and place of that
hearing and the consequences of failing to appear.”).

-- 2 of 3 --

12-72182 3
The BIA did not violate Catalan’s due process rights by failing to provide a
reasoned explanation for its denial of her motion to reopen because it provided
specific and cogent reasons sufficient to enable our review of its decision. See
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[The agency] is
required . . . merely . . . [to] consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in
terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and
thought and not merely reacted.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --