22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T44a,MEMORANDUM Nelson Manuel Menendez-Acevedo, 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 decision denying his motion to reopen proceedings held in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Salta v. INS, 314 F.3d 1076, 1078 (9th Cir.2002), we deny the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Menendez-Acevedo’s motion to reopen because notices of hearing were mailed to both of the addresses Menendez-Acevedo gave to the immigration court and Menendez-Acevedo failed to provide persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of proper delivery of the notices. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A) (written notice shall be considered sufficient for purposes of an in absentia removal order if provided at the most recent address given by alien); Salta, 314 F.3d at 1079 . PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T477,

MEMORANDUM

Nelson Manuel Menendez-Acevedo, 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 decision denying his motion to reopen proceedings held in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Salta v. INS, 314 F.3d 1076, 1078 (9th Cir.2002), we deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Menendez-Acevedo’s motion to reopen because notices of hearing were mailed to both of the addresses Menendez-Acevedo gave to the immigration court and Menendez-Acevedo failed to provide persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of proper delivery of the notices. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A) (written notice shall be considered sufficient for purposes of an in absentia removal order if provided at the most recent address given by alien); Salta, 314 F.3d at 1079 .

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.