
    Maricela DUARTE-GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72725.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
    
    Filed Nov. 16, 2012.
    Jeremy Michael Clason, Esquire, Yarra, Kharazi & Associates, Fresno, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Oil, Jennifer A. Singer, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maricela Duarte-Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen deportation 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, Arrieta v. INS, 117 F.3d 429, 430 (9th Cir.1997) (per curiam), and we grant the petition for review and remand.

The agency abused its discretion in denying Duarte-Gutierrez’s motion to reopen on the ground that he failed to establish lack of notice. The record contains a returned certified mail receipt with the United States Postal Service notation “NSN RB 1” and the BIA erred in failing to take administrative notice of the fact that “NSN” stands for “no such number.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003. l(d)(3)(iv)(the BIA may take administrative notice of commonly known facts). Accordingly, we grant the petition and remand for further proceedings. INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-17, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

In light of our disposition, we need not reach Duarte-Gutierrez’s remaining contentions.

We deny the government’s motion to strike.

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