Case Name: Narendra PATEL, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-01-13
Citations: 118 F. App'x 314
Docket Number: No. 03-73502; Agency No. A70-213-171
Parties: Narendra PATEL, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 118
Pages: 314–315

Head Matter:
Narendra PATEL, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-73502.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
Decided Jan. 13, 2005.
Narendra Patel, Glendale, CA, pro se.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Gregory Pearson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Narendra Patel, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' summary affirmance of an immigration judge's ("U") denial of his motion to reopen, filed six years after Patel was ordered deported in absentia. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam), and we deny the petition for review.
Patel moved to reopen on the ground that he failed to attend his deportation hearing because he did not receive notice of the hearing date. The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Patel's motion because notice of the hearing was sent by certified mail to Patel at his address of record. See Farhoud v. INS, 122 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir.1997).
To the extent Patel contends the BIA's summary affirmance procedure violates due process, this contention is foreclosed by our decision in Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir.2003).
Patel's remaining contention lacks merit.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.