Rafael Paz v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAFAEL PAZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-72235
Agency No. A073-959-686
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Rafael Paz, 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 order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings
conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
NOV 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

review de novo questions of law, and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Paz’s motion to reopen
and rescind his in absentia order, where Paz acknowledges that the notice was
delivered by certified mail to his address of record and that his brother signed for
it. See Farhoud v. INS, 122 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir. 1997) (notice was sufficient
where it was sent by certified mail to petitioner’s address of record). It follows that
Paz failed to establish a due process violation. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, an alien must show
error and prejudice).
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Paz’s motion
to reopen to apply for adjustment of status, where it was filed 16 years after entry
of the final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen
must be filed within 90 days of final order of removal).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision not to reopen
proceedings sua sponte. See Go v. Holder, 744 F.3d 604, 609-10 (9th Cir. 2014).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
1133--7722223355 2

-- 2 of 2 --