Testo completo
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARIA D. RODRIGUEZ-CASTRO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72340
Agency No. A073-904-077
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Maria D. Rodriguez-Castro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen deportation
proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
FILED
JUL 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
10-72340 2
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Chete Juarez v.
Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 944, 947 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez-Castro’s
motion to reopen where the Order to Show Cause was sent by certified mail to her
address of record, and the record contains a signed certified mail return receipt.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(1), (c)(1) (1995); Chaidez v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 1079,
1083 (9th Cir. 2007).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Rodriguez-Castro’s contention that the
signature on her asylum application does not match the signature on the return
receipt because she failed to raise that issue before the BIA and thereby failed to
exhaust her administrative remedies. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080
(9th Cir. 2010) (no jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented before the
BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
-- 2 of 2 --