JOSE GUADALUPE VIVANCO- RODRIGUEZ, AKA Guadalupe Vivanco- Rodriguez, AKA Jose G.… v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE GUADALUPE VIVANCO-
RODRIGUEZ, AKA Guadalupe Vivanco-
Rodriguez, AKA Jose G. Vivano-
Rodriguez,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-71254
Agency No. A070-826-910
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jose Guadalupe Vivanco-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen
FILED
MAY 19 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 --

deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen.
Arrieta v. INS, 117 F.3d 429, 430 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam). We deny the
petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Vivanco-Rodriguez’s
motion to reopen on the grounds that notice was proper and that Vivanco-
Rodriguez failed to rebut the strong presumption of effective service arising from
the service of his hearing notice by certified mail. See Matter of Grijalva, 21 I. &
N. Dec. 27, 37 (BIA 1995) (“[W]here service of a notice of deportation proceeding
is sent by certified mail through the United States Postal Service and there is proof
of attempted delivery and notification of certified mail, a strong presumption of
effective service arises.”); Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 822-23 (9th
Cir. 2011) (finding that a sworn affidavit claiming lack of notice was not sufficient
to overcome the strong presumption of effective service where notice of hearing
was sent via certified mail to alien’s last known address).
Vivanco-Rodriguez’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-71254 2

-- 2 of 2 --