Case Name: Eliazar CABRERA-GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-05
Citations: 427 F. App'x 581
Docket Number: No. 09-72741
Parties: Eliazar CABRERA-GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 427
Pages: 581–581

Head Matter:
Eliazar CABRERA-GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-72741.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2011.
Filed April 15, 2011.
Carlos Alfredo Cruz, Esquire, Law Offices of Carlos A. Cruz, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Margaret Anne O’Donnell, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, 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
Eliazar Cabrera-Gutierrez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's order denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia in 1990. 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), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Cabrera-Gutierrez's motion to reopen where the record reflects that Cabrera-Gutierrez's counsel of record was served with the hearing notice. See id. (notice to attorney of record constitutes notice to alien); see also Matter of Velasquez, 19 I. & N. Dec. 377, 384 (BIA 1986) (stating that "under the regulations, there is no 'limited' appearance of counsel in immigration proceedings").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.