Lidia Carrillo-Recinos v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LIDIA CARRILLO-RECINOS,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-71094
Agency No. A095-117-688
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Lidia Carrillo-Recinos, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s order denying her motion to rescind and reopen removal
proceedings held in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
FILED
NOV 23 2015
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 --

We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and we review
for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Hamazaspyan v. Holder,
590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Carrillo-
Recinos was personally served her Notice to Appear and received the required
advisals. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1). Accordingly, the agency did not abuse its
discretion in denying Carrillo-Recinos’ motion to reopen based on lack of notice
where her hearing notice was mailed to her last address provided. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(b)(5)(A) (written notice is considered sufficient if sent to the most recent
address provided).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Carrillo-Recinos’ contention that the
English-language documents she received in her removal proceedings did not
satisfy due process, where Carrillo-Recinos failed to exhaust this contention before
the agency. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court
lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative
proceedings).
Carrillo-Recinos’ remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
13-71094 2

-- 2 of 2 --