Case Name: Rahim Kasam MAREDIAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-11-22
Citations: 155 F. App'x 763
Docket Number: No. 04-60987
Parties: Rahim Kasam MAREDIAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 155
Pages: 763–763

Head Matter:
Rahim Kasam MAREDIAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-60987.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Nov. 22, 2005.
Sarfraz Aftab Sharif, Sharif & Associates, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Robert L. Rawls, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont, TX, Alberto R. Gonzales, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District Directors Office, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rahim Kasam Maredian petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA's) denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Maredian was ordered deported in absentia to his native Pakistan when he failed to appear at a master hearing. Maredian argues that he is entitled to reopening of the proceedings because he received inadequate notice of the hearing date. He further agues that the BIA's ruling was violative of his Fifth Amendment due process rights.
A deportation order entered in absentia pursuant to § 240(b)(5) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 may be rescinded upon a motion to reopen "if the alien demonstrates that he . did not receive notice in accordance with [8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1) & (2) ]." 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(H) (2005). Maredian has not made such a showing. The record supports the findings of the immigration judge, adopted and affirmed by the BIA, that Maredian was personally served with written notice of the new hearing date and was also orally advised of such. Maredian has therefore not shown the BIA's ruling to be an abuse of discretion, Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 303-04 (5th Cir.2005), and, having been afforded notice, he has also not suffered a due process violation. Manzano-Garda v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 462, 470 (5th Cir.2005). His petition for review is therefore DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.