Krishna Kumar Govind Lar- Patel v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KRISHNA KUMAR GOVIND LAR-
PATEL,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-72830
Agency No. A073-127-568
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Krishna Kumar Govind Lar-Patel, a native and citizen of India, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen deportation
proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
OCT 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-72830
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and
review de novo questions of law. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir.
2016). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not err in determining Govind Lar-Patel received the proper
advisals of his obligation to keep his contact information updated and the
consequences of failing to appear. The record shows he was personally served
with an order to show cause (“OSC”) containing the requisite advisals, and the use
of “Indian” on the OSC does not establish that advisals were insufficient. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a) (1994).
The agency did not err or abuse its discretion in denying Govind Lar-Patel’s
motion for failure to show lack of notice, where the record indicates the notice of
hearing was sent via certified mail to the address he provided and was signed for.
See Arieta v. INS, 117 F.3d 429, 431 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[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.”). Govind Lar-Patel did not rebut the presumption of proper delivery,
where he provided no evidence that the signature on the certified mail return
receipt was not that of a responsible party, nor any other evidence of improper
delivery. See id. at 432 (If an alien “can establish that [his] mailing address has
remained unchanged, that neither [he] nor a responsible party working or residing
at that address refused service, and that there was nondelivery or improper delivery

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-72830
by the Postal Service, then [he] has rebutted the presumption of effective
service.”). Govind Lar-Patel’s contention that the agency failed to consider
evidence is not supported.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Govind Lar-Patel’s challenges to the
agency’s denial of sua sponte reopening, where he has not raised any constitutional
or legal error. See Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 588 (court can review BIA decisions
denying sua sponte reopening only for the limited purpose of reviewing the
reasoning behind the decision for legal or constitutional error).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --