Sabou Razvan-Octavian v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SABOU RAZVAN-OCTAVIAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73133
Agency No. A088-363-307
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 13, 2012**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Sabou Razvan-Octavian, a native and citizen of Romania, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen removal
proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
FILED
NOV 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-73133 2
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and
review de novo due process claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-
92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen
where Razvan-Octavian was provided proper notice of his hearing. See 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1229(a)(1)-(2), 1229a(b)(5); see also Khan v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 825, 828-29
(9th Cir. 2004) (holding that neither IIRIRA nor its implementing regulations
require that the INS provide hearing notices in any language other than English).
Razvan-Octavian’s contentions that his due process rights were violated by
the BIA’s decision not to prepare a transcript, and by the lack of an interpreter at
his first Master Calendar hearing, lack merit. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246
(9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice for a due process
violation); see also Khan, 374 F.3d at 829-30.
Neither Razvan-Octavian’s contention regarding lack of personal service of
the notice, nor his ineffective assistance of counsel contention were raised below,
therefore we lack jurisdiction to review these unexhausted claims. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --