J. Sacramento Garcia Maria L. Gomez Gamino Noel C. Garciagomez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 222 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
J. Sacramento Garcia Maria L. Gomez Gamino Noel C. Garciagomez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 222 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
163 citation events (163 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Villanueva Hernandez v. Bondi, No. 24-4218 (9th Cir. Dec. 9, 2025)
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001 2013 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#16 8 C.F.R. § 292.5 cited 1× in this case · 201 total citations of statute #4 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2)(A) cited 1× in this case · 65 total citations of statute #7 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(3)(B) cited 1× in this case · 82 total citations of statute #4 8 C.F.R. § 3.26 cited 1× in this case · 34 total citations of statute #10 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(3)(A) cited 1× in this case · 105 total citations of statute
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 1209 Notice to counsel constitutes notice to alien118 citing casesstating that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the alien12 citing courts put it this way · 113 listed here
  • Villanueva Hernandez v. Bondi, No. 24-4218 (9th Cir. Dec. 9, 2025).unpublished
    (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 ch…)
  • Yoryet Maria Lozano Mosquera v. Warden, Adelanto ICE Processing Ctr., No. 5:26-cv-01724 (C.D. Cal. June 18, 2026).
    “It is a longstanding principle that in ‘our system of representative 12 litigation . . . each party is deemed bound by the acts of his lawyer-agent and is 13 considered to have notice of all facts, notice of which can be charged upon the…
  • Coleman v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, No. 24-2939 (9th Cir. Jan. 15, 2026).unpublished
    Garcia v. I.N.S., 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000).
  • Rene Lemus-Escobar v. Pamela Bondi, No. 18-73423 (9th Cir. Nov. 10, 2025).published
    Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam).
  • Rene Lemus-Escobar v. Pamela Bondi, 140 F.4th 1079 (9th Cir. 2025).published
    Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam).
  • Luis Antonio Villacorta-Orellana v. Merrick Garland, No. 21-70955 (9th Cir. Dec. 13, 2024).unpublished
    See, e.g., id. at 829 ; Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam).
  • Coleman v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, 730 F. Supp. 3d 1097 (D. Nev. 2024).published
    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…
  • Dan Huynh v. William Barr, No. 17-73326 (9th Cir. June 19, 2020).unpublished
    Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000).
  • Hai Huang v. William Barr, No. 18-71865 (9th Cir. Sept. 25, 2019).unpublished
    (notice to attorney of record constitutes notice to the alien)
  • Alba Maldonado-Mendoza v. William Barr, No. 17-73161 (9th Cir. July 17, 2019).unpublished
    (notice of hearing is properly served if it is served on alien’s counsel of record)
Show 103 more citing cases
At page 1208 “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.”0 citing cases1 citing court quotes it
    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
    99-70206.
    Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
    Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
    Aug 22, 2000.
    Published opinion
    222 F.3d 1208
    2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7035
    2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 21112
    2000 WL 1180559
    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).