Camille Kairouz v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 563 F. App'x 554 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                              FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             MAR 17 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    CAMILLE GEORGE KAIROUZ,                         Nos. 10-71131, 10-72641
    Petitioner,                      Agency No. A070-077-181
    v.                               MEMORANDUM*
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Argued and Submitted February 5, 2014
    Pasadena, California
    Before: SCHROEDER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM, District
    Judge.**
    Camille George Kairouz, a native and citizen of Lebanon, files these
    consolidated petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
    orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his first
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the
    District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
    and second motions to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. We
    have jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review for abuse of discretion the
    denial of motions to reopen. Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 
    706 F.3d 1072
    , 1078 (9th
    Cir. 2013). We deny the petitions for review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kairouz’s motions to reopen
    where the record shows that proper notice of Kairouz’s September 9, 1999,
    deportation hearing was sent to his attorney of record at the time. See 8 U.S.C.
    § 1252b(a)(2); 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.26
    (b); Garcia v. INS, 
    222 F.3d 1208
    , 1209 (9th Cir.
    2000) (per curiam) (holding that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice
    to the petitioner). Although Kairouz now argues that his attorney no longer
    represented him at the time the notice was mailed, that assertion is not supported
    by the record.
    PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-71131, 10-72641

Citation Numbers: 563 F. App'x 554

Judges: Clifton, Schroeder, Tunheim

Filed Date: 3/17/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/31/2023