Mullane v. Centr. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950)); accord Farhoud v. INS, 122 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir.1997). A1 Mutarreb argues that the method of service employed was not reasonably calculated to reach him. After the NTA was returned as “unclaimed,” A1 Mutarreb points out, the Service made no attempt to send the notice to Al Mutarreb’s street address (which A1 Mutarreb had provided to the Service as an alternative to his P.O. Box). Nor did it mail a copy of the NTA to his counsel of record, Elias Shamieh, as A1 Mutarreb argues 8 C.F.R. § 292.5(a) requires. Instead, the Service affirmatively requested that proceedings go forward without Al Mutarreb. Compare Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 225, 126 S.Ct. 1708, 164 L.Ed.2d 415 (2006) (<HOLDING>). A1 Mutarreb also maintains that the Service
recognizing that pursuant to pennsylvanias unclaimed property act abandoned property is held in perpetual temporary custody of the state holding that property owner was not entitled to relief under cafra because he was given sufficient notice of the administrative forfeiture proceeding through certified mail holding that when the state sends a letter threatening a tax foreclosure via certified mail and the letter is returned unclaimed due process requires that the state take additional reasonable steps to attempt to provide notice to the property owner before selling his property if it is practicable to do so holding no enforceable contract where letter specified it was a letter of interest only and is subject to the negotiation and execution of a definitive agreement  holding notice of impending tax sale of property was not reasonably calculated to reach property owner when notice sent via certified letter by state was returned unclaimed and state did not take additional reasonable steps to ensure notice was provided