Wendy Rebeca Rivas-Esquivel v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WENDY REBECA RIVAS-ESQUIVEL,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-73018
Agency No. A099-631-179
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 15, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Wendy Rebeca Rivas-Esquivel, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her 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, and
* 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
JUL 17 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-73018
review de novo 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 Rivas-Esquivel’s motion
to reopen based on lack of notice, where the record indicates that she was
personally served the notice of hearing in court on February 20, 2007. See 8
U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A), (C)(ii). Rivas-Esquivel’s contentions that the BIA
ignored her arguments or engaged in impermissible factfinding are not supported
by the record. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010)
(holding the BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its
decision); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and
substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
Rivas-Esquivel has failed to show that the BIA erred or violated due process
in declining to hold her case in abeyance. See Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246. Rivas-
Esquivel cites no authority to support her contention that a request to hold in
abeyance an appeal of an IJ’s denial of a motion to reopen requires a good cause
determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --