Nam

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioner Young Suk Nam seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of her motion to reconsider. We review for abuse of discretion. Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir.2000).

Petitioner asserts that she never received the Notice of Hearing in Removal Proceedings, which set the date for her master hearing before an immigration judge (“IJ”). Consequently, neither she nor her lawyer attended her removal proceeding, and the IJ ordered Petitioner removed in absentia. The INS sent the Notice by regular mail to the address it had on file for Petitioner.

Although sending notice by certified mail, with its attendant proof of attempted delivery, raises a strong presumption of effective service, the same cannot be said of regular mail. Salta v. INS, 314 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.2002). If an alien has no motive to avoid a removal hearing, and she provides a sworn affidavit stating she did not receive a notice of hearing sent by regular mail, then she has satisfied the evidentiary requirement necessary to rebut the presumption of delivery. Id.

In this case, Petitioner’s husband had filed an immigrant visa petition on her behalf to classify her…