
    Mario CHO-AJANEL, Petitioner v. Loretta LYNCH, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-60511
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 3, 2015.
    Hans Bremer, Bremer Law & Associates, L.L.C., Providence, RI, for Petitioner.
    Briena Lorraine Strippoli, Esq., Trial Attorney, John Beadle Holt, Esq., Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Remi Da Rocha-Afodu, Esq., Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Mario Cho-Ajanel petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his motion to reopen his in absentia removal proceedings and dismissing his appeal. Cho-Ajanel raises two due process claims in his petition for review: (1) the IJ should have reopened the removal hearing because Cho-Ajanel did not receive notice thereof in his native language and (2) the BIA’s summary affir-mance of the IJ’s order, without opinion, deprives this court of a sufficient basis for reviewing the reasonableness of the BIA’s action.

This court has previously held that “sections 1229(a)(1) and (b)(1) do not require notice in the alien’s native language.” Ek Hong Djie v. Holder, 310 Fed.Appx. 720, 721 (5th Cir.2009). Moreover, as Cho-Ajanel correctly concedes, his argument regarding the BIA’s summary affirmance procedures is foreclosed in this circuit. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 832-33 (5th Cir.2003) (holding that BIA’s summary affirmance procedures “do not deprive this court of a basis for judicial review and ... do not violate due process”). Cho-Ajanel invites this court to revisit Ek Hong Djie and Soadjede, arguing that those cases fail to appreciate the extent to which the claimed deprivations undermine aliens’ established due process rights to notice and judicial review. We decline the invitation. See Jacobs v. Nat’l Drug Intelligence Ctr., 548 F.3d 375, 378 (5th Cir.2008).

The petition for review is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not. precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     