With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". unambiguously holds Anin responsible for his lawyer’s actions and omissions. Therefore, despite the fact that Anin may not have received actual notice, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to reopen his deportation proceeding. Additionally, the fact that Anin did not receive actual notice of the deportation hearing does not present a violation of the Due Process Clause. Although procedural due process in the deportation context requires a meaningful and fair hearing with a reasonable opportunity to be heard, see London v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32-3, 103 S.Ct. 321, 74 L.Ed.2d 21 (1982); Nazarova v. INS, 171 F.3d 478, 482 (7th Cir.1999), it does not demand that an alien receive actual notice. Due process is satisfied if notice is accorded “in a manner 1992) (<HOLDING>); cf. Furlong v. Havee, 885 F.2d 815, 818 (11th

A: holding that due process rights were not violated when alien claimed a lack of actual notice but his attorney received notice
B: holding that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the petitioner
C: holding that alien need not receive actual notice for due process requirements to be satisfied
D: holding a judgment in the absence of notice violates due process rights
A.