
    Maria D. RODRIGUEZ-CASTRO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72340.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 17, 2012.
    
    Filed July 23, 2012.
    Ian Silverberg, Esquire, Law Offices of Ian Silverberg, Reno, NV, for Petitioner.
    Aliza Bessie Alyeshmerni, 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, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, 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 D. Rodríguez-Castro, 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. Our jurisdiction is governed 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Chete Juarez v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 944, 947 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez-Castro’s motion to reopen where the Order to Show Cause was sent by certified mail to her address of record, and the record contains a signed certified mail return receipt. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(l), (c)(1) (1995); Chaidez v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 1079, 1083 (9th Cir.2007).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Rodriguez-Castro’s contention that the signature on her asylum application does not match the signature on the return receipt because she failed to raise that issue before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.2010) (no jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented before the BIA).

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