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:T48e,MEMORANDUM Maria Bertha Morales-Aparicio, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981, 986 (9th Cir. 2007), we deny the petition for review. . The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Morales-Aparicio’s motion to reopen to rescind her deportation order where the hearing notice was sent by regular mail to the post office box provided by Morales-Aparicio, there is no evidence that mail sent there by DHS was ever returned as undeliverable, and her evidence is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of delivery. Cf. Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981, 988-90 (9th Cir, 2007) (describing evidence sufficient to overcome presumption of effective service). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,24:T4bb,

MEMORANDUM

Maria Bertha Morales-Aparicio, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981, 986 (9th Cir. 2007), we deny the petition for review. .

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Morales-Aparicio’s motion to reopen to rescind her deportation order where the hearing notice was sent by regular mail to the post office box provided by Morales-Aparicio, there is no evidence that mail sent there by DHS was ever returned as undeliverable, and her evidence is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of delivery. Cf. Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981, 988-90 (9th Cir, 2007) (describing evidence sufficient to overcome presumption of effective service).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,