JAVIER MOYA-SANCHEZ, AKA Javier Sanchez Moya v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAVIER MOYA-SANCHEZ, AKA Javier
Sanchez Moya,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-71155
Agency No. A205-720-583
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Javier Moya-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings
conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Sembiring v. Gonzales,
* 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
FEB 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-71155
499 F.3d 981, 985 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Moya-Sanchez’s motion
to reopen, where the notice of hearing was sent by regular mail to his most recent
address of record, and he did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut the
presumption of effective service. See id. at 988-89 (identifying factors relevant to
evaluating a petitioner’s rebuttal of the presumption of effective delivery).
The agency also did not abuse its discretion in denying Moya-Sanchez’s
motion to reopen to apply for asylum and related relief, where he failed to establish
changed country conditions in Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i); Salim v.
Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]he changed country conditions
exception is concerned with two points in time: the circumstances of the country at
the time of the petitioner’s previous hearing, and those at the time of the motion to
reopen.”).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Moya-Sanchez’s unexhausted remaining
contentions regarding eligibility for asylum and related relief. See Tijani v. Holder,
628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --