Case Name: Maria Auxilio RODRIGUEZ-LANDA, a.k.a. Veronica Avina-Martinez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-25
Citations: 411 F. App'x 993
Docket Number: No. 08-75228
Parties: Maria Auxilio RODRIGUEZ-LANDA, a.k.a. Veronica Avina-Martinez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 411
Pages: 993–993

Head Matter:
Maria Auxilio RODRIGUEZ-LANDA, a.k.a. Veronica Avina-Martinez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-75228.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
Filed Jan. 25, 2011.
Robert Bradford Jobe, Esquire, Law Offices of Robert B. Jobe, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, Zoe Jaye Heller, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-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: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Maria Auxilio Rodriguez-Landa, 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. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez-Landa's motion to reopen because Rodriguez-Landa's former counsel received proper notice of the deportation hearing held on April 14, 1994. See id. (notice to an attorney of record constitutes notice to petitioner); cf. Flores-Chavez v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir.2004).
Rodriguez-Landa's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.