Jorge Mendoza-Barragan v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE MENDOZA-BARRAGAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72384
Agency No. A075-766-086
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Mendoza-Barragan, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his
second motion to reopen seeking reissuance of the BIA’s prior order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed
FILED
DEC 18 2013
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).

-- 1 of 2 --

by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a
motion to reopen, Hernandez-Velasquez v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1073, 1077 (9th Cir.
2010), and for substantial evidence the BIA’s factual determinations, Siong v. INS,
376 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Mendoza-Barragan’s
second motion to reopen for reissuance, because the evidence in the record does
not compel the conclusion that Mendoza-Barragan did not receive the BIA’s prior
order dismissing his appeal. See Hernandez-Velasquez, 611 F.3d at 1078 (“[T]he
BIA enjoys a rebuttable ‘presumption of mailing’ when it issues a decision
accompanied by a properly addressed and dated cover letter . . . , [which] may be
rebutted by affidavits of nonreceipt . . . .”); see also Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050,
1054 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[S]tatements in motions are not evidence and are
therefore not entitled to evidentiary weight.”).
We lack jurisdiction to review Mendoza-Barragan’s challenge to the BIA’s
order of March 27, 2007, denying his first motion to reopen for reissuance, because
this petition for review is untimely as to that order. See Membreno v. Gonzales,
425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
11-72384 2

-- 2 of 2 --