ROHIT PATEL PATEL, AKA Rohit Kumar Govindbhai Patel v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROHIT PATEL PATEL, AKA Rohit
Kumar Govindbhai Patel,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70917
Agency No. A201-019-493
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Rohit Patel Patel, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings
conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
AUG 24 2016
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 --

for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo
constitutional claims and questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785,
791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Patel’s motion to reopen
as untimely, where Patel filed the motion more than two years after the February 2,
2011, in absentia removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i). Notice of
Patel’s removal hearing was proper, where Patel was personally served a Notice to
Appear, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a); see also Flores-Chavez v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d
1150, 1155 n.4 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Current law does not require that the Notice to
Appear . . . be in any language other than English.”), and the hearing notice was
mailed to the most recent address he provided, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229(c),
1229a(b)(5)(A). Patel’s due process contentions are therefore unavailing. See
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an alien must show error and
prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
Patel’s equal protection claim is unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
15-70917 2

-- 2 of 2 --