Case Name: Camille George KAIROUZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-03-17
Citations: 563 F. App'x 554
Docket Number: Nos. 10-71131, 10-72641
Parties: Camille George KAIROUZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 563
Pages: 554–555

Head Matter:
Camille George KAIROUZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 10-71131, 10-72641.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 5, 2014.
Filed March 17, 2014.
Audra Rose Behne, Law Office of Audra R. Behne a Professional Corporation, En-cino, CA, for Petitioner.
Laura M.L. Maroldy, Trial, OIL, 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: SCHROEDER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM, District Judge.
The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Camille George Kairouz, a native and citizen of Lebanon, files these consolidated petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his first and second motions 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 motions to reopen. Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir.2013). We deny the petitions for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kairouz's motions to reopen where the record shows that proper notice of Kairouz's September 9, 1999, deportation hearing was sent to his attorney of record at the time. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.26(b); Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (holding that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the petitioner). Although Kairouz now argues that his attorney no longer represented him at the time the notice was mailed, that assertion is not supported by the record.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.