
    Marta Lydia ALAS-SORTO, aka Blanca Silvia Mejia-Segura, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-72574.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 23, 2005.
    
    Decided April 11, 2005.
    Judith L. Wood, Esq., Law Offices of Judith L. Wood, Human Rights Project, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAS-Distriet Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John M. McAdams, Jr., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Marta Lydia Alas-Sorto, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“U”) order denying her motion to reopen proceedings in which she was ordered deported in absentia. We have jurisdiction pursuant to former 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1183 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc). Reviewing for abuse of discretion, id. at 1187, we deny the petition for review.

Contrary to Alas-Sorto’s contentions, the agency provided her with sufficient notice of her immigration proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1); Khan v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 825, 828-29 (9th Cir.2004). The IJ concluded, and the record evinces, that Alas-Sorto was personally served with the Order to Show Cause (“OSC”). The OSC was in both English, and AlasSorto’s native language of Spanish, and gives the time and location of the hearing as well as the consequences for failure to appear.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     