provided) the Attorney General with a written record of an address and telephone number (if any) at which the alien may be contacted respecting proceedings under section 1229a of this title.” 6 . In past cases, we have held that service of a hearing notice on an alien's counsel, and not on the alien himself, may be a sufficient means of providing notice of the time and location of removal proceedings. See, e.g., Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (finding no due process violation when notice was personally served on petitioner’s counsel at the conclusion of a master calendar hearing). We have never held the converse, however: that serving a hearing notice on an alien, but not on his counsel of record, is sufficient. Cf. Dobrota v. INS, 311 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Nor have we resolved the regulation’s meaning
holding that the failure to notify aliens counsel of an order to appear for deportation violated the aliens statutory right to counsel holding that an aliens express waiver of his right to appeal to the bia deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider the aliens subsequent petition for review holding that due process rights were not violated when alien claimed a lack of actual notice but his attorney received notice holding that the inss mailing a hearing notice to an aliens last known address but not to his attorney violated the aliens due process rights because the alien reasonably relied on statutory and regulatory language not relevant here that suggested his counsel would receive copies of all such notices holding that we could not review an aliens colorable due process claim that an ij was not impartial because the alien raised the claim for the first time on appeal