Leibis Doralia Carpio-Reyes 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEIBIS DORALIA CARPIO-REYES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-71079
Agency No. A073-127-862
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Leibis Doralia Carpio-Reyes, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her motion to reopen her
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

JT/Research 05-71079 2
deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, including claims of due
process violations, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.
2003), and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Perez v.
Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Carpio-Reyes does not dispute that the Order to Show Cause was personally
served on her, and she concedes she failed to provide the immigration court with
an address where she could be contacted. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.15(c) (1994). The IJ,
therefore, properly ordered her deported in absentia when she failed to appear at
the immigration hearing, and the agency acted within its discretion in denying
Carpio-Reyes’ motion to reopen to rescind her deportation order. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(2)-(3) (1994); Sequeira-Solano v. INS, 104 F.3d 278, 279 (9th
Cir. 1997). Contrary to Carpio-Reyes’ contention, the agency considered her claim
of non-receipt.
Carpio-Reyes’ contention that the BIA violated due process by failing to
provide her with a transcript of proceedings fails because she did not demonstrate
prejudice. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring
prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).

-- 2 of 3 --

JT/Research 05-71079 3
Carpio-Reyes has waived any challenge to the agency’s denial of her motion
to reopen under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act. See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --