
    Arcenio Tomas ZARATE-ALCANTARA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-71686.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 2, 2011.
    
    Filed Aug. 9, 2011.
    
      Robert Bradford Jobe, Esquire, Law Offices of Robert B. Jobe, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Matthew B. George, Oil, Katherine Ann Smith, Trial, 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: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Arcenio Tomas Zarate-Alcantara, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings held in ab-sentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to reopen. Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zarate-Alcantara’ motion to reopen because Zarate-Alcantara was accompanied by counsel to his hearing where counsel received both oral and written notice of Zarate-Alcantara’s next scheduled hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2), (c)(1) (1995); Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”).

We lack jurisdiction to review Za-rate-Alcantara’s contention that a Spanish version of his notice of hearing should have been issued under 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(3) (1995) because he failed to raise that issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency).

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