Case Name: Dipak CHAUDHARI, Petitioner v. Loretta LYNCH, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-15
Citations: 668 F. App'x 83
Docket Number: No. 15-60280 Summary Calendar
Parties: Dipak CHAUDHARI, Petitioner v. Loretta LYNCH, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Judges: Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 83–83

Head Matter:
Dipak CHAUDHARI, Petitioner v. Loretta LYNCH, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
No. 15-60280 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Date Filed: 08/15/2016
Naim Haroon, Sakhia Law Group, Plano, TX, for Petitioner
Arthur L. Rabin, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Dipak Chaudhari, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge's (IJ) denial of his motion to reopen his in absentia removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction to review the denial of this motion. See Nolos v. Holder, 611 F.3d 279, 281 (5th Cir. 2010). We review the BIA's denials of motions to reopen under a "highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard." Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir. 2005).
Chaudhari argues that he never received notice of the date and time of his removal hearing. Service of notice of the removal hearing upon Chaudhari's attorney constituted. adequate notice. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(2)(A); § 1229a(b)(5)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1292.5(a); Rodriguez-Manzano v. Holder, 666 F.3d 948, 953 n.6 (5th Cir. 2012); Men Keng Chang v. Jiugni, 669 F.2d 275, 277-78 (5th Cir. 1982). Thus, Chaudhari has not shown that the BIA abused its discretion. See Zhao, 404 F.3d at 303.
The petition for review is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.