motion to reopen proceedings in which he was ordered excluded in absentia. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Lo v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 934, 937 (9th Cir.2003), we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings. The agency abused its discretion in denying Longia’s motion to reopen where the evidence of record shows reasonable cause for Longia’s failure to appear. See Urbina-Osejo v. INS, 124 F.3d 1314, 1316 (9th Cir.1997) (observing that “reasonable cause” under former 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b) can exist if petitioner does not receive adequate notice of hearing). The agency failed to mail the notice of hearing to the exact name and address provided by Lon-gia. See Busquets-Ivars v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, the record copy of the mailing
holding that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the petitioner holding that notice to supervisor is notice to city holding that claimants statement that she did not recall receiving the notice of indebtedness did not constitute clear evidence to rebut the presumption that notice was properly sent holding that the invocation of a presumption of notice requires the agency to prove that the notice was properly addressed holding that upon receipt of the important notice a conclusive presumption of notice was established