RUTH GRACIELA CAMACHO-GRANDA and RUTH CRISTINA CUEVA- CAMACHO v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUTH GRACIELA CAMACHO-GRANDA
and RUTH CRISTINA CUEVA-
CAMACHO,
Petitioners,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-72268
Agency Nos. A202-185-867
A202-185-868
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 16, 2018**
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Ruth Graciela Camacho-Granda and Ruth Cristina Cueva-Camacho, natives
and citizens of Ecuador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying their
motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction
* 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
JAN 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-72268
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reopen. Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981, 985 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny the
petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen based on lack of notice, where the notice of hearing was mailed to the last
address provided but returned as undeliverable. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229(a)(1)(F)(i),
(2)(B) (requiring alien to provide address at which she may be contacted),
1229a(b)(5)(A) (written notice sent to the last address provided by the alien is
sufficient notice for purposes of conducting in absentia proceedings); Carrillo-
Gonzalez v. INS, 353 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th Cir. 2003) (statements by counsel are
not evidence).
Petitioners have waived any challenge to the BIA’s determination that they
did not demonstrate changed conditions in Ecuador that would permit the filing of
an otherwise untimely motion to reopen. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091
n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in an opening brief are waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --