September 5, 1995
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 95-1137
ALFORD CHRISTOPHER CLARK,
Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER
OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
Before
Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,
Circuit Judges,
Alan M. Pampanin and Bennett R. Savitz on brief for petitioner.
Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Philemina McNeill Jones and John J. Andre, Attorneys, Office of
Immigration Litigation Civil Division, on brief for respondent.
Per Curiam. Petitioner Alford Clarke seeks
judicial review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order
that dismissed his appeal from an Immigration Judge's denial
of his motion to reopen deportation proceedings after the
petitioner was ordered deported in absentia. The immigration
judge entered the deportation order after the petitioner
failed to appear on time for a hearing on his application for
212(c) relief. See 8 U.S.C. 1182(c).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the parties'
briefs on appeal. We find no merit in the petitioner's
arguments. It is well established that in absentia hearings
are not "per se violative of due process." Patel v.
U.S.I.N.S., 803 F.3d 804, 806 (5th Cir. 1986). The fact that
the petitioner appeared late, as opposed to failing to appear
at all, and had previously reported to the INS pursuant to
the conditions of his release, is irrelevant. The record
discloses that the petitioner was given a reasonable
opportunity to be present and that he failed to provide a
reasonable cause for his absence. Under these circumstances,
the in absentia order did not violate due process. See
Maldonado-Perez v. INS, 865 F.2d 328, 329-37 (D.C. Cir.
1989); Reyes-Arias v. INS, 866 F.2d 500, 503 (D.C. Cir.
1989).
Accordingly, the petition for review is denied.
-2-