
    Mariesla Del Carmen BRACAMONTE-ROMERO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-71619.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 20, 2011.
    
    Filed May 4, 2011.
    Antonio R. Salazar, Esquire, Salazar Law Office, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Michele Yvette Frances Sarko, Esquire, Nairi Mary Simonian, Esquire, Michelle Gorden Latour, Esquire, Assistant Director, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mariesla Del Carmen BracamonteRomero, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decisions denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted 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.

Contrary to Bracamonte-Romero’s contention, the agency did not abuse its discretion in concluding that she failed to overcome the presumption of effective service created by regular mail. Cf. id. at 1079-80; Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981, 988 (9th Cir.2007).

Nor did the BIA abuse its discretion in denying Bracamonte-Romero’s motion to reopen because the motion failed to offer any new or previously unavailable evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).

Bracamonte-Romero’s motion to stay is denied.

Counsel Antonio R. Salazar’s motion to withdraw as counsel on behalf of Bracamonte-Romero is granted. Court records shall be amended to reflect petitioner Marisela Del Carmen Bracamonte-Romero 4801 108th St. # B-202, Lynwood, WA 98037, is proceeding pro se.

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