Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): calculated’ to ensure that notice reaches the alien.” Farhoud v. INS, 122 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir.1997) (quoting United States v. Estrada-Trochez, 66 F.3d 733, 736 & 736 n. 1 (5th Cir.1995)); cf. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 318, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950) (finding that “notice must be such as is reasonably calculated to reach interested parties”). In this case, the INS simply followed the INA statute and chose a method of notice authorized by the statute — a method Congress itself determined was reasonably calculated to ensure proper notice. See 8 C.F.R. § 292.5(a) (1999); INA § 242B(a)(2), (c)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2), (c)(1) (1994). This method of notification does not violate an alien’s due process rights. See Farhoud, 122 F.3d at 796 (<HOLDING>); Wijeratne v. INS, 961 F.2d 1344, 1346 (7th 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an alien is entitled to the fifth amendment guarantee of due process which is satisfied by a full and fair hearing (B) holding that alien need not receive actual notice for due process requirements to be satisfied (C) holding that the government need not prove actual notice to the prisoner (D) holding that due process rights were not violated when alien claimed a lack of actual notice but his attorney received notice (E) holding that due process is satisfied where notice is mailed to the wrong address if the appellant received actual notice
Output (English): holding that the government need not prove actual notice to the prisoner