MALIK DIL AWAN, AKA Dil Muhammad v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MALIK DIL AWAN, AKA Dil
Muhammad,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72929
Agency No. A070-804-821
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 23, 2017**
Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Malik Dil Awan, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal 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.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
OCT 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-72929
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Awan’s motion to reopen,
based on lack of notice, where Awan was personally served with two prior hearing
notices containing his address of record, filed a letter with the court indicating he
would be leaving the country prior to his hearing date, and timely appealed the
immigration judge’s in absentia order. See Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981,
985 (9th Cir. 2007) (BIA does not abuse its discretion unless it acted “arbitrarily,
irrationally, or contrary to law” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); cf.
Khan v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 825, 828-29 (9th Cir. 2004) (actual notice is sufficient
to meet due process requirements). Based on the evidence in this case, Awan has
not shown that the BIA erred in determining his statement in support of the motion
to reopen was inherently unbelievable. See Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 678-
79 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --