
    Bardh DURGAJ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-1961-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 5, 2012.
    Caridad Pastor Cardinale, Troy, MI, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Thomas B. Fatouros, Senior Litigation Counsel; Annette M. Wietecha, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, RICHARD C. WESLEY, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Bardh Durgaj, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks review of a May 12, 2010 order of the BIA affirming the February 2, 2009 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Elizabeth A. Lamb, which denied his motion to reopen. In re Bardh Durgaj, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. May 12, 2010), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 2, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the decision of the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See Debeatham v. Holder, 602 F.3d 481, 484 (2d Cir.2010); Aliyev v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 111, 115-16 (2d Cir.2008). An order of removal entered in absentia may be rescinded only upon: (1) a motion filed within 180 days after the date of the order of removal if the alien demonstrates that the failure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances; or (2) a motion to reopen filed at any time if the alien demonstrates that he did not receive notice as required or demonstrates that he was in federal or state custody and the failure to appear was through no fault of his own. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C).

The only issue before us is whether the agency erred in finding that Durgaj received the required notice and thus was not eligible for rescission of his in absentia removal order, as Durgaj does not assert any exceptional circumstances in his brief to this Court. The required notice to an alien in removal proceedings consists of written notice of the consequences of the failure to appear at the proceedings against the alien in the notice to appear (“NTA”), and written notice given in person to the alien specifying any change or postponement in the time and place of such proceedings. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229(a)(1), (2). Durgaj does not allege that he did not receive written notice, only that he did not receive oral notice in Albanian. There is no requirement that an alien in removal proceedings be notified orally of the consequences of failure to appear at a hearing before removal is ordered in absentia, and a lack of oral notice is not grounds for reopening proceedings after an in absentia order has been entered. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229(a), 1229a (b)(5)(A), (C). Furthermore, the record clearly shows that with the service of the NTA, Durgaj received written notice in English, and oral notice in Albanian, of the consequences of failing to appear at any scheduled hearing. He further received written notice, in English, prior to his August 12, 1999 hearing date, of the consequences of failing to appear at that particular hearing. Consequently, the agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Durgaj’s motion to reopen.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 
      
       While there is no requirement that an alien be given oral notice of the consequences of failure to appear before he is ordered removed in absentia, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229(a)(1), (a)(2), 1229a (b)(5)(A), an alien who is given oral notice in his native language of the date and time of a hearing, and the consequences of failing to appear at that hearing, and nonetheless fails to appear, is ineligible for certain types of discretionary relief for ten years after the entry of the in absentia removal order, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(7).
     