
    Otilio Ostorga CRUZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-72889
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 16, 2017
    .Robert G. Berke, Esquire, Attorney, Berke Law Offices, Canoga Park, CA, for Petitioner
    Jamie M. Dowd, Esquire, Attorney, Bernard Joseph, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Otilio Ostorga Cruz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Ostorga Cruz’s motion to reopen, based on lack of notice, where Ostorga Cruz no longer disputes that he was personally served a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) that informed him of his obligation to update the court with a current address, and he failed to inform the court that the address listed on his NTA was no longer his current address. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (a motion to reopen in absentia proceedings based on lack of notice may be filed at any time); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(B) (no notice of hearing required if the alien has failed to inform the government of a change in address).

Contrary to Ostorga Cruz’s contention, the agency did not err or violate due process by not providing the contents of the NTA in Spanish. See Flores-Chavez v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1150, 1155 n.4 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Current law does not require that the Notice to Appear ... be in any language other than English.”); Lata v. I.N.S., 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an alien must show error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     