green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
81.8 score
“it is a longstanding principle that in 'our system of representative litigation . . . each party is deemed bound by the acts of his lawyer-agent and is considered to have "notice of all facts, notice of which can be charged upon the attorney.”
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#3
8 C.F.R. § 3.26
#12
8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(3)(A)
#4
8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2)(A)
#16
8 C.F.R. § 292.5
#7
8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(3)(B)
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Villanueva Hernandez v. Bondi
it is a longstanding principle that in 'our system of representative litigation . . . each party is deemed bound by the acts of his lawyer-agent and is considered to have "notice of all facts, notice of which can be charged upon the attorney.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Coleman v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
Garcia v. I.N.S., 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rene Lemus-Escobar v. Pamela Bondi
Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rene Lemus-Escobar v. Pamela Bondi
Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Luis Antonio Villacorta-Orellana v. Merrick Garland
See, e.g., id. at 829 ; Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Coleman v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
As the Ninth Circuit has explained, 11 “[i]t is a longstanding principle that in ‘our system of representative litigation, each party is 12 deemed bound by the acts of his lawyer-agent and is considered to have notice of all facts, notice 13 of which can be charged upon the attorney.’”56 So the fact that the failure to serve Hooten and 14 Ramirez was originally the fault of Coleman’s 2020–2022 counsel is not excusable neglect 15 because the law imputes that failure on Coleman, too. 16 Even if Coleman weren’t deemed responsible for his former attorneys’ failure, his 17 personal …
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dan Huynh v. William Barr
Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hai Huang v. William Barr
See 8 U.S.C. § 1229 (a)(2)(A); Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000) (notice to attorney of record constitutes notice to the alien).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alba Maldonado-Mendoza v. William Barr
See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.26 (c)(2) (notice is sufficient for in absentia purposes when written notice is “provided to the alien or the alien’s counsel of record”); Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000) (notice of hearing is properly served if it is served on alien’s counsel of record).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mandy Liemmertz v. Matthew Whitaker
See 8 U.S.C. § 1229 (a)(2)(A) (setting forth notice requirements); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.26 (c)(2) (notice is sufficient for in absentia purposes when “written notice of the time and place of proceedings and written notice of the consequences of failure to appear were provided to the alien or the alien’s counsel of record”); Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000) (no due process violation where written notice was personally served on petitioners’ counsel, in petitioners’ presence, in court at the master calendar hearing).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Marina Butenko v. Matthew Whitaker
Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Yinggao Li v. Matthew Whitaker
See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.23 (b)(4)(ii) (motion to reopen in absentia proceedings may be filed at any time if alien did not receive proper notice), 1003.26(c)(2) (notice is sufficient when “written notice of the time and place of proceedings and written notice of the consequences of failure to appear were provided to the alien or the alien’s counsel of record”); Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000) (no due process violation where written notice was personally served on petitioners’ counsel, in petitioners’ presence, in court at the master calendar hearing).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jaime Funez-Sepeda v. Jefferson Sessions, III
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.26 (c)(2) (notice sufficient for in absentia purposes when “written notice of the time and place of proceedings and written notice of the consequences of failure to appear were provided to the alien or the alien’s counsel of record”); Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000) (hearing notice is proper if served on alien’s counsel of record).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Falguniben Patel v. Jefferson Sessions
See id. at § 1003.26(c)(2) (notice sufficient for in absentia purposes when “written notice of the time and place of proceedings and written notice of the consequences of failure to appear were provided to the alien or the alien’s counsel of record”); Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000) (hearing notice is properly served if it is served on alien’s counsel of record).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sodhi Singh v. Jefferson Sessions
Before retaining Mr. Kaufman, Petitioner had notice through his prior attorney, Richard Oriakhi, of the BIA’s 2005 decision to reopen his case and remand the record “to allow the parties to present evidence and testimony regarding the alleged fabrication in the underlying asylum application.” See Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the alien). 1 And, at his initial hearing on remand, the IJ reiterated that the case was remanded to permit the parties “to present evidence and testimony regarding the alleg…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
He Chen v. Jefferson Sessions
See 8 C.F.R. § 292.5 (a) (notice shall be serviced on alien’s attorney of record unless unrepresented); Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000) (notice to attorney of record constitutes notice to the alien).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Malkit Kaur v. Loretta E. Lynch
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23 (b)(4)(ii) (a motion to reopen to rescind an in absentia removal order may be “filed at any time if the alien demonstrates that he or she did not receive notice” of the hearing); 8 U.S.C. § 1229 (a) (permitting written notice of time and place of a hearing through mail to alien’s counsel of record); Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000) (service on counsel of record is statutorily sufficient).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gildardo Vazquez-Mendez v. Loretta E. Lynch
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23 (b)(4)(iii)(A)(2); 8 C.F.R. § 1292.5 (a) (permitting notice on alien’s attorney of record); Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000) (notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the alien).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lucia Osorio De Cordova v. Loretta E. Lynch
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23 (b)(4)(iii)(A)(2); 8 C.F.R. § 1292.5 (a) (permitting notice on alien’s attorney of record); Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000) (notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the alien).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Osorio De Cordova v. Lynch
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23 (b)(4)(ii) (a motion to reopen to rescind an in absentia deportation order may be filed at any time if the alien demonstrates that he or she did not receive notice of the hearing); 8 C.F.R. § 1292.5 (a) (permitting notice on alien’s counsel of record); Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000) (notice to the attorney of-record constitutes notice to the alien).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Salwinder Singh v. Loretta E. Lynch
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2) (1994) (setting forth notice requirements); Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000) (notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the alien).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jose Cartajena-Hernandez v. Loretta E. Lynch
Cartajena-Her-nandez does not dispute that he failed to establish the diligence necessary for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) (equitable tolling is available to an alien who is prevented from timely filing a motion to reopen due to “deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence in discovering the deception, fraud, or error”), and notice of his hearing was served oh his attorney of record, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23 (b)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (a motion to reopen to rescind an in absentia deportation orde…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Amoncio Cruz-Gomez v. Loretta Lynch
In Garcia, the Ninth Circuit recognized that the predecessor to 8 U.S.C. § 1229 (a) similarly required that “written notice shall be given in person to the alien (or, if personal service is not practicable, written notice shall be given by certified mail to the alien or to the alien’s counsel of record, if any).” 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2)(A)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Eduardo Castillo-Trigoso v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
(2×)
Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kismet Acquisition, LLC v. Icenhower (In Re Icenhower)
A party “is considered to have ‘notice of all facts, notice of which can be charged upon [her] attorney.’ ” Garcia v. I.N.S., 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (quoting Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 634 , 82 S.Ct. 1386 , 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Camille Kairouz v. Eric Holder, Jr.
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).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hector Cruz-Rodas v. Eric Holder, Jr.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A); Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wenxin Zhang v. Eric Holder, Jr.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rohvicj Lopez Y Lopez v. Eric Holder, Jr.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2)(A) (repealed 1996) (written notice shall be given by certified mail to the alien or to the alien’s counsel of record); Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (notice to attorney of record constitutes notice to alien).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jorge Farias
Popa v. Holder, 571 F.3d 890, 897 (9th Cir.2009); Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mario Canas-Canas v. Eric Holder, Jr.
Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Julio Araujo-Quinonez v. Eric Holder, Jr.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Roberto Ramos v. Eric Holder, Jr.
See Vaz Dos Reis v. Holder, 606 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir.2010) (“notice” and “knowledge” are not the same and notice served on counsel of record is sufficient to give alien notice of the hearing); see also Scorteanu v. I.N.S., 339 F.3d 407, 412 (6th Cir.2003) (collecting cases); Garcia v. I.N.S., 222 F.3d 1208, 1209-10 (9th Cir.2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Arcenio Zarate-Alcantara v. Eric Holder, Jr.
Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Santiago Nunez v. Eric Holder, Jr.
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen proceedings conducted in absentia, Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Eliazar Cabrera-Gutierrez v. Eric Holder, Jr.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Elsa Orellana-Leon v. Eric Holder, Jr.
Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam), we deny the petition for review.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mynor Andrade-Ortega v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Garcia v. INS., 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam), and we deny the petition for review.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Maria Rodriguez-Landa v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam), and we deny the petition for review.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vaz dos Reis v. Holder
See, e.g., Pervaiz v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 488, 490 (7th Cir. 2005); Scorteanu v. INS, 339 F.3d 407, 412 (6th Cir. 2003); Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam); Anin v. Reno, 188 F.3d 1273, 1277 (11th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vaz dos Reis v. Holder
See, e.g., Pervaiz v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 488, 490 (7th Cir.2005); Scorteanu v. INS, 339 F.3d 407, 412 (6th Cir.2003); Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam); Anin v. Reno, 188 F.3d 1273, 1277 (11th Cir.1999) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Parga-Rosas v. Holder
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dubon-Alfaro v. Holder
See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A), (C)(ii); Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alfaro Perez v. Holder
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Markosyan v. Holder
Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000), we deny the petition for review.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Markosyan v. Holder
Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000), we deny the petition for review.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Makhlouf v. Mukasey
INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (holding that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the petitioner).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Martin v. Mukasey
“It is a longstanding principle that in our system of representative litigation ... each party is deemed bound by the acts of his lawyer-agent and is considered to have notice of all facts, notice of which can be charged upon the attorney.” Garcia v. I.N.S., 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 634 , 82 S.Ct. 1386 , 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962)) (internal citation and quotation omitted); see also Bruce J.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Simtion, Raducu v. Gonzales, Alberto
See Kuschchak v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 597, 603-04 (7th Cir.2004); Garcia v. I.N.S., 222 F.3d 1208, 1209-10 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dilbar v. Gonzales
See 8 U.S.C. § 1229 (a)(2)(A); Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (holding that it is a longstanding principle that a party is considered to have notice of all facts of which his attorney has notice) (citations omitted).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
J. Sacramento GARCIA; Maria L. Gomez Gamino; Noel C. Garcia Gomez, Petitioners,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
99-70206.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Aug 22, 2000.
Donald Ungar, San Francisco, California, for the petitioners., Quynh Vu, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the respondent.
Wallace, Sneed, Schroeder.
Cited by 139 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM:
J. Sacramento Garcia, Maria L. Gomez Gamino, and Noel C. Garcia Gomez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). [2] We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Urbina-Osejo v. INS, 124 F.3d 1314, 1316 (9th Cir.1997). We review de novo the BIA’s “ ‘determination of purely legal questions regarding the requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act.’ ” Tedeeva v. INS, 88 F.3d 826, 827 (9th Cir.1996) (quoting Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir.1995)). We deny the petition.
We disagree with petitioners’ contention that they received inadequate notice of their hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2)(A). That section requires that “written notice shall be given in person to the alien (or, if personal service is not practicable, written notice shall be given by certified mail to the alien or to the alien’s counsel of record, if any).” Id.
It is a longstanding principle that in “our system of representative litigation ... each party is deemed bound by the acts of his lawyer-agent and is considered to have ‘notice of all facts, notice of which can be charged upon the attorney.’ ” Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 634, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) (quoting Smith v. Ayer, 101 U.S. 320, 326, 25 L.Ed. 955 (1880)).
Due process is satisfied if notice is served in a manner “reasonably calculated” to ensure that it reaches the alien. See Farhoud v. INS, 122 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir.1997); Matter of Barocio, 19 I. & N. Dec. 255, 259 (BIA 1985) (holding that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the petitioner); 8 C.F.R. § 292.5(a) (stating that whenever alien is required to be given notice, such notice shall be given to attorney of record).
The Immigration and Naturalization Service personally served the written notice on petitioners’ counsel, in petitioners’ presence, in court at the master calendar hearing. That notice advised them of the next hearing date. When petitioners failed to appear at the next hearing, the IJ properly conducted the in absentia deportation hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.26 (allowing in absentia hearing if IJ finds that notice of the proceeding was provided by written notice to the applicant or to the applicant’s counsel of record). We conclude that petitioners’ claim of inadequate notice of the hearing is not grounds for rescinding the IJ’s in absentia deportation order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(3)(B).
Any contention that the in absentia deportation order should be rescinded due to ineffective assistance of counsel is not before us. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252b(c)(3)(A),[*1210] (f)(2) (exceptional circumstances requiring recission of in absentia deportation order).
We deny petitioners’ motion to hold proceedings in abeyance.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2
. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("IIRIRA”) repealed 8 U.S.C. § 1105a and replaced it with a new judicial review provision codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See IIRIRA § 306(c)(1), Pub.L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (Sept. 30, 1996), as amended by Act of Oct. 11, 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-302, 110 Stat. 3656. However, because the new review provision does not apply to petitioners whose deportation proceedings commenced before April 1, 1997, this court continues to have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a. See IIRIRA § 309(c)(1).