
    Sarabjit SINGH, a.k.a. Sarbjit Singh, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72882.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 19, 2013.
    
    Filed Dec. 11, 2013.
    Judith L. Wood, Esquire, Law Offices of Judith L. Wood & Jesse A. Moorman, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sarabjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen exclusion proceedings held in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo claims of due process violations. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen where Singh failed to demonstrate reasonable cause for his failure to appear. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b) (1991); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(iii)(B); see also Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the petitioner).

Singh’s contention that the BIA violated its own regulations and Singh’s due process rights by setting a briefing schedule prior to the issuance of the transcript from Singh’s 1991 proceedings fails because he has not established prejudice. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

In light of this disposition, we need not reach Singh’s remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     