Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Marvin Ernesto LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM **
Marvin Ernesto Lopez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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, and denying his motion to remand. We have jurisdiction 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 BIA did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Lopez’s appeal and denying his motion to remand based on lack of notice, where the hearing notice was sent by regular mail to the address last provided by Lopez, and he failed to rebut the presumption of effective service. See id. at 986-88 (describing evidence relevant to overcome presumption of effective service sent by regular mail); Dobrota v. INS, 311 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002) (notice requirement is satisfied by mailing notice of the hearing to an alien at the address last provided to the agency). We reject Lopez’s contention that the BIA failed to give adequate weight to his declaration. Cf. Salta v. INS, 314 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Where a petitioner actually initiates a proceeding to obtain a benefit, appears at an earlier hearing, and has no motive to avoid the hearing, a sworn affidavit from [petitioner] that neither [he] nor a responsible party residing at [his] address received the notice should ordinarily be sufficient to rebut the presumption of [regular mail] delivery.”).
Because Lopez’s failure to overcome the presumption of delivery of the hearing notice is dispositive as to both motions, we do not reach his contentions regarding the effectiveness of prior counsel or compliance with Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 14-72108
Decided: July 13, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)