Case Name: REN AI LI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-15
Citations: 369 F. App'x 286
Docket Number: No. 09-3393-ag
Parties: REN AI LI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, WALKER, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 369
Pages: 286–287

Head Matter:
REN AI LI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Respondent.
No. 09-3393-ag.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
March 15, 2010.
Matthew L. Kolken, Kolken & Kolken, Buffalo, NY, for Petitioner.
Jamie Dowd (Susan Houser, Francis Fraser, Tony West, on the brief), Office of Immigration Litigation, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, WALKER, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Ren Ai Li, a citizen and national of China, petitions for review of a final order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen his 1995 order of exclusion. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
"We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion." Alrefae v. Chertoff, 471 F.3d 353, 357 (2d Cir.2006). "In general, when a respondent who has been ordered excluded in absentia moves to reopen the proceedings by showing reasonable cause, the IJ has broad discretion to grant or deny that motion based on all the facts and circumstances involved, including the general strength and plausibility of the evidentiary showing that the movant has made." Twum v. INS, 411 F.3d 54, 58 (2d Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Here, Li attempts to demonstrate reasonable cause for missing an August 1995 hearing that led to a decision issued in absentia. He argues that he lacked notice from the court or his own attorney. However, the record demonstrates that Li received oral notice of the August 1995 hearing at an April 1995 hearing (and that he understood the translation of that oral notice), and that he received written notice of the new hearing date. Either of these notices would have been independently adequate. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.26.
Li concedes that he "do[es] not recall why [he] was not at the August 3, 1995 hearing." As the notice Li received was adequate, and he cannot remember why he missed the hearing, the BIA did not abuse its broad discretion by denying the motion to reopen.
Finding no merit in Li's remaining arguments, we hereby DENY the petition.