HERBERT HERRERA-VENTURA V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 16-72429 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 12 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HERBERT ORLANDO HERRERAVENTURA, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-72429 Agency No. A099-664-551 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 10, 2018** Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Herbert Orlando Herrera-Ventura, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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. * 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). § 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Herrera-Ventura’s motion to reopen based on lack of notice, where 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); Carrillo-Gonzalez v. INS, 353 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th Cir. 2003) (statements by counsel are not evidence). To the extent Herrera-Ventura contends that the agency should have permitted him to file an otherwise untimely motion to reopen based on changed conditions in El Salvador, we lack jurisdiction to consider this unexhausted contention. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency). In light of this disposition, we do not reach Herrera-Ventura’s remaining contentions regarding eligibility for relief. Herrera-Ventura’s request to stay his removal is denied as unnecessary. The 2 16-72429 temporary stay of removal will expire upon issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 16-72429

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.