Garewal

MEMORANDUM **

Anthony Garewal appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) ruling affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his motion to reopen. Garewal argues that the in absentia hearing was improper, that failure to rule on the motion to continue was improper, and that the denial of the motion to reopen was an abuse of discretion. We have jurisdiction and we deny Garewal’s petition for review.

I

Garewal argues that the in absentia hearing was improper because Garewal received notice of the hearing by mail rather than through personal service. Personal service is not practicable when the respondent is not personally present before the IJ at the time the hearing docket is scheduled. Tedeeva v. INS, 88 F.3d 826, 827 (9th Cir.1996). In such situations, notice by mail is proper. In re Grijalva, 21 I. & N. Dec. 27 at 35 , 1995 WL 314388 (1995). Garewal was not present when notice for the missed hearing was issued. Notice by mail was sufficient.

II

Garewal argues that the following constituted a violation of due process: the IJ’s failure to consider the motion to continue and the failure to notify counsel of the status of the motion, the short preparation time, the…