
    Domingo Alberto HUINAC-VICENTE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-70265.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 12, 2011.
    
    Filed July 13, 2011.
    Victor Daniel Nieblas, Esquire, Litigation Counsel, Law Office of Victor D. Nieb-las, City of Industry, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, 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 SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Domingo Alberto Huinac-Vicente, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir.2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Huinac-Vicente’s motion to reopen where the record demonstrates that he was personally served with an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing, written in both English and Spanish. See 8 U.S.C. 1252b(a)(3) (1996); Khan v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 825, 828-29 (9th Cir.2004) (notice proper where INS adhered to statutorily imposed procedural requirements). In addition, Huinac-Vicente failed to submit any evidence to support a claim that he is eligible for relief from removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Huinac-Vicente’s remaining contentions because he failed to exhaust them before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

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