
    Ivan Simon CASTELLON-CHAVEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-71617
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 20, 2016
    Ian Silverberg, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Ian Silverberg, Reno, NY, for Petitioner
    OIL, Steven Kiyoto Uejio, Esquire, Trial Attorney, 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: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ivan Simon Castellon-Chavez, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 questions of law. Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981, 985 (9th Cir. 20Q7). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Castellon-Chavez’s motion to reopen where the hearing notice was sent by regular mail to the address last provided to the immigration court, and he failed to rebut the presumption of effective service. See id. at 986-88 (describing evidence relevant to overcome presumption of effective service sent by regular mail); see also Matter of M-R-A-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 665, 674 (BIA 2008) (listing affirmative relief applications and diligence among the factors for consideration in determining whether an alien has rebutted the weaker presumption of delivery).

Castellon-Chavez’s contention that the agency applied an incorrect legal standard is not supported by the record. Accordingly, his due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring 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.
     