UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DESIRE KOFFI YEBOUA, Petitioner,

v. No. 96-1267 U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A72-378-611) Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 9, 1997 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Carrie Crawford, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, David J. Kline, Deputy Director, Jane Gomez, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM:Petitioner Desire Koffi Yeboua seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigrationjudge's order denying his motion to reopen his deportation proceedings. The immigration judge held the proceedings in absentia as permitted under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b) (1994) where an alien "has been given a reasonable opportunity to be present" at the hearing but fails to appear. Yeboua argues that b ecause he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel regarding his in absentia pro ceeding, the immigration judge erred in declining to reopen the proceeding. Ye boua further contends that the INS failed to show that Yeboua r eceived sufficient notice of the hearing he missed and that the motion to reopen should have been granted on that ground. See8 U.S.C. § 1252B(c)(3)(B) (1994). For the reasons stated below, we deny the petition for review. Even as a threshold matter, Yeboua f aces a difficult task in thispetition. This court reviews the denial of a motion to reopen a deportation proceeding only for an abuse of discretion, see Yanez-P opp v. INS , 998 F.2d 231, 234 (4th Cir. 1993), and will uphold the denial absent a showing that the Board's action was arbitrary and capricious. Gottesman v. INS , 33 F.3d 383, 389 (4th Cir. 1994). Yeboua does noteven suggest such egregious action on the part of the Board. Moreover, our review at this juncture does not encompass the merits of the immigration judge's decision to order deportation, from which Yeboua did not timely appeal. See, e.g. , Aiyadurai v. INS , 683 F.2d 1195, 1198-99 (8th Cir. 1982).In his appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, Yeboua presented two claims. He suggested that the immigration judge erred by failing to consider the more lenient provisions of 8 C.F.R. § 242.22 (1995) in declining to reopen the pro ceeding and that the judge erredin failing to set bond. In this petition, Yeboua raises two entirely separate issues of ineffective assistance of counsel and inadequate notice from the INS of the scheduled hearing. "As a general rule, an alien who has failed to raise claims during an appeal to the BIA has waived his right to raise those claims before a federal court on appeal of those
2claims." Farrokhi v. INS , 900 F.2d 697, 700 (4th Cir. 1990). Consequently, this court need not address Yeboua's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and insufficient notice b ecause he has waived his right to present them in this forum. Yeboua's petition for review is denied. We dispense with oralargument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED 3