22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4ab,MEMORANDUM Raul Parga-Rosas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo questions of law. Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Parga-Rosas’ motion to reopen because the record reflects that notice of the February 3, 2005, hearing was mailed to the address of record of Parga-Rosas’ counsel. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229 (a)(2)(A) (notice may be served by mail on alien or alien’s counsel of record); see also Garcia, 222 F.3d at 1209 (notice to counsel of record constitutes notice to alien); Farhoud v. INS, 122 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir.1997) (actual receipt of notice by alien not required to satisfy due process). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4d8,

MEMORANDUM

Raul Parga-Rosas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo questions of law. Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Parga-Rosas’ motion to reopen because the record reflects that notice of the February 3, 2005, hearing was mailed to the address of record of Parga-Rosas’ counsel. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229 (a)(2)(A) (notice may be served by mail on alien or alien’s counsel of record); see also Garcia, 222 F.3d at 1209 (notice to counsel of record constitutes notice to alien); Farhoud v. INS, 122 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir.1997) (actual receipt of notice by alien not required to satisfy due process).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.