Case ID: f-appx_371/html/0873-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Raul PARGA-ROSAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-76592.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 16, 2010.
    
    Filed March 25, 2010.
    Raymond H. Wood, Esq., Law Offices of Wood & Gonzales, National City, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAS-District Counsel, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Chief Counsel, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Susan K. Houser, Esq., Robert J. Branman, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Raul Parga-Rosas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo questions of law. Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Parga-Rosas’ motion to reopen because the record reflects that notice of the February 3, 2005, hearing was mailed to the address of record of Parga-Rosas’ counsel. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(2)(A) (notice may be served by mail on alien or alien’s counsel of record); see also Garcia, 222 F.3d at 1209 (notice to counsel of record constitutes notice to alien); Farhoud v. INS, 122 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir.1997) (actual receipt of notice by alien not required to satisfy due process).

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.