
    Maria Bertha MORALES-APARICIO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 16-70665
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    OCTOBER 2, 2017
    Timothy M. Greene, General, Law Offices of Timothy M. Greene, Puyallup, WA, for Petitioner.
    
      Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Yanal H. You-sef, Trial, Linda Y. Cheng, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges,
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maria Bertha Morales-Aparicio, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981, 986 (9th Cir. 2007), we deny the petition for review. .

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Morales-Aparicio’s motion to reopen to rescind her deportation order where the hearing notice was sent by regular mail to the post office box provided by Morales-Aparicio, there is no evidence that mail sent there by DHS was ever returned as undeliverable, and her evidence is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of delivery. Cf. Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981, 988-90 (9th Cir, 2007) (describing evidence sufficient to overcome presumption of effective service).

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