Ernesto Estrada-Escamilla v. JEFF B. SESSIONS, United States Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERNESTO ESTRADA-ESCAMILLA,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFF B. SESSIONS, United States
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70000
Agency No. A029-679-091
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2017**
Pasadena, California
Before: TALLMAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges; and MURPHY, III,***
District Judge
FILED
FEB 22 2017
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).
*** The Honorable Stephen Joseph Murphy, III, District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Ernesto Estrada-Escamilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing his appeal of the
Immigration Judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen an in absentia removal
order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We review the denial of a
motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1018
(9th Cir. 2004). We review the BIA’s factual findings underlying its decision for
substantial evidence, and its legal conclusions de novo. Id. We deny the petition for
review.
1. Estrada argues only that he never received notice of his deportation hearing;
he has not argued that the government failed to inform him of his responsibility to
notify the government of any change of address. See Urbina-Osejo v. INS, 124 F.3d
1314, 1317 (9th Cir. 1997) Notice of a deportation hearing sent by regular mail to the
last address provided by the alien satisfies the requirements of constitutional due
process. Farhoud v. INS, 122 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir. 1997). Here, the government
mailed the Notice of Hearing to the address Estrada provided, and Estrada did not
inform the government he had moved. Estrada thus cannot show that the in absentia
removal order violated his due process rights, and the BIA did not abuse its discretion
in denying Estrada’s motion to reopen.
2. Estrada also fails to show any change in country conditions in El Salvador
2 14-70000

-- 2 of 3 --

that was sufficiently material to excuse his motion being filed 21 years late. see
Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth the requirements
for prevailing on a motion to reopen due to changed country conditions); 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-70000

-- 3 of 3 --