Rodriguez

facts, the Board did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the Order to Show

Cause and Notice of Hearing “was signed by . . . a responsible person at [Ms.

Rodriguez’s] address.” See id.

Ms. Rodriguez argues that she nevertheless did not receive legally sufficient

notice because a subsequent notice providing the date, time, and place of the hearing

was sent by certified mail to the same address and returned unclaimed. This Court

has recognized a “strong presumption” that notice of a hearing is effective when it

is sent by certified mail, “even if no one signed for it.” Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder,

633 F.3d 818, 822 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Arrieta v. I.N.S., 117 F.3d 429, 431 (9th

Cir. 1997)). This presumption can be rebutted by showing “that [the petitioner’s]

mailing address has remained unchanged, that neither she nor a responsible party

working or residing at that address refused service, and that there was nondelivery

3 or improper delivery by the Postal Service.” Arrieta, 117 F.3d at 432. Ms.

Rodriguez has not made this showing. The Board, because it considered all of

Rodriguez’s nondelivery evidence, was within its discretion to conclude that Ms.

Rodriguez…