Viewing entries tagged
in absentia order

Comment

Ninth Circuit Addresses Exceptional Circumstances for Missing Hearing

The Ninth Circuit has addressed the facts the agency must consider when determining if a non-citizen missed a hearing in Immigration Court due to exceptional circumstances. Namely, the agency must consider the totality of the circumstances, including whether the non-citizen had a motive to miss the hearing and whether the refusal to reopen would result in unconscionable circumstances. In this case, the minor children would be able to derive citizenship through their naturalized father if they were able to obtain permanent residency, and as such, the Court found that a refusal to reopen would cause unconscionable hardship. In addition, the non-citizens showed diligence following the issuance of their in absentia removal order by driving to court and speaking to the clerk, despite encountering two major car accidents, and promptly filing their motion to reopen. The court also emphasized that non-citizens are not required to make a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief to reopen an in absentia removal order.

The full text of Montejo-Gonzalez v. Garland can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/10/17/21-304.pdf

Comment

Comment

Ninth Circuit Remands Motion to Reopen In Absentia

Two years ago, the Ninth Circuit determined that a court may not issue an in absentia removal order when the Notice to Appear is missing the time and date of the first removal hearing. “We grant Singh’s petition and hold that noncitizens must receive a Notice to Appear in a single document specifying the time and date of the noncitizen’s removal proceedings, otherwise any in absentia removal order directed at the noncitizen is subject to rescission pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii).” The court rejected the Board’s contrary determination in Matter of Laparra.

The full text of Singh v. Garland can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/02/04/20-70050.pdf

On remand from the Supreme Court (which rejected the Ninth Circuit’s analysis about the implications of a Notice to Appear missing the first hearing information as it relates to issuance of an in absentia removal order), the Ninth Circuit again remanded this petition for review to the agency, noting the agency failed to consider the totality of the circumstances, including his eligibility for relief, the advancement of his hearing date by the court system, and the role his attorney played.

An updated decision can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/09/17/20-70050.pdf

Comment

Comment

Supreme Court Finds that Incomplete NTA does not Preclude Issuance of In Absentia Order

The Supreme Court has determined that an Immigration Judge may order removed in absentia a non-citizen who received a Notice to Appear lacking the time and date of his first hearing, if the Immigration Court subsequently mailed a notice of hearing to the individual with that information.

The full text of Campos-Chaves v. Garland can be found here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-674_bq7d.pdf

Comment

Comment

Third Circuit Finds Incomplete NTA Precludes In Absentia Removal Order

The Third Circuit has determined that an incomplete Notice to Appear (i.e., one lacking the date and time of a first hearing) precludes the entry of an in absentia removal order. “According to the Department, this disjunctive phrasing makes Madrid-Mancia’s defective NTA immaterial. Madrid-Mancia got a ‘Notice of Hearing,’ and that alone, it concludes, is enough for in absentia removal. That is not enough because § 1229a(b)(5)(A) always requires a complete NTA. And the Attorney General cannot cure defects in an NTA by sending out a self-styled ‘Notice of Hearing’ because announcing the time and date of a removal hearing for the first time is not a ‘change or postponement’ in the time or place.”

The full text of Madrid-Mancia v. Attorney General can be found here:

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/212291p.pdf

Comment

Comment

Fifth Circuit Affirms In Absentia for Failure to Correct Typo on NTA

The Fifth Circuit has determined that a non-citizen who received an NTA with an address bearing a single typo, and who failed to correct the address with the court, is not entitled to written notice of his hearing, even if the typo was made by an immigration officer. The court was not persuaded that the non-citizen must have provided an accurate address or otherwise corrected the address by the fact that the bag and baggage letter was sent to the correct address.

The full text of Nivelo Cardenas v. Garland can be found here:

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-60778-CV0.pdf

Comment

Comment

Ninth Circuit Remands Motion to Reopen

The Ninth Circuit has remanded a motion to reopen filed by a pro se applicant who missed her first hearing, and contacted the immigration court within a week to inquire about her in absentia hearing. The court found that the applicant’s statements of non-receipt of the hearing notice were entitled to credibility in the absence of contrary evidence.

The full text of Perez-Portillo v. Garland can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/12/30/20-73486.pdf

Comment

Comment

Fifth Circuit Distinguishes Decision in Rodriguez

The Fifth Circuit has distinguished its decision in Rodriguez v. Garland - which precluded entry of an in absentia order when the Notice to Appear was missing the time and date of the first hearing and the applicant did not receive a notice of hearing. In the instant case, the petitioner admitted that he did receive the notice of hearing, and therefore, the Court declined to mandate reopening based on the defective Notice to Appear.

The decision in Campos-Chaves v. Garland can be found here:

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-60262-CV1.pdf

Comment

Comment

First Circuit Finds In Absentia Must be Rescinded when NTA Lacks Information about First Hearing

The First Circuit has determined that an in absentia order must be rescinded when the Notice to Appear is missing the date of the first removal hearing. In so doing, the First Circuit disagreed with the Board of Immigration Appeals’ precedential decision in Matter of Laparra-Deleon.

The full text of Laparra-Deleon v. Garland can be found here:

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/22-1081P-01A.pdf

Comment

Comment

Eleventh Circuit Affirms In Absentia Order

The Eleventh Circuit has determined that a petitioner who was served a defective Notice to Appear (missing the time and place of his first hearing) can still be ordered removed in absentia if he moved after receipt of the NTA and before issuance of a notice of hearing, but did not update the immigration court about his new address.

The full text of Dragomirescu v. Attorney General can be found here:

https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202013705.pdf

Comment

Comment

Ninth Circuit Finds In Absentia Precluded by Incomplete NTA

The Ninth Circuit has determined that a court may not issue an in absentia removal order when the Notice to Appear is missing the time and date of the first removal hearing. “We grant Singh’s petition and hold that noncitizens must receive a Notice to Appear in a single document specifying the time and date of the noncitizen’s removal proceedings, otherwise any in absentia removal order directed at the noncitizen is subject to rescission pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii).” The court rejected the Board’s contrary determination in Matter of Laparra.

The full text of Singh v. Garland can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/02/04/20-70050.pdf

On remand from the Supreme Court (which rejected the Ninth Circuit’s analysis about the implications of a Notice to Appear missing the first hearing information as it relates to issuance of an in absentia removal order), the Ninth Circuit again remanded this petition for review to the agency, noting the agency failed to consider the totality of the circumstances, including his eligibility for relief, the advancement of his hearing date by the court system, and the role his attorney played.

An updated decision can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/09/17/20-70050.pdf

Comment

Comment

BIA Declines to Rescind In Absentia Order Premised on Defective NTA

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that an in absentia removal order need not be reopened when the respondent was served with a Notice to Appear missing the time and date of the first hearing, but also served with a Notice of Hearing containing that information. The Board acknowledged that its decision is inconsistent with the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Rodriguez v. Garland.

The full text of Matter of Laparra can be found here:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1463551/download

Comment

Comment

Fifth Circuit Upholds In Absentia Order Despite Deficient NTA

The Fifth Circuit has affirmed the denial of a motion to reopen an in absentia removal order where the Notice to Appear was missing the time and date of the first removal hearing because the petitioner provided a deficient mailing address to immigration authorities. The court distinguished its recent decision in Rodriguez, finding that the petitioner in the instant matter forfeited his right to notice of his removal proceeding by providing a deficient mailing address.

The decision in Spagnol-Bastos v. Garland can be found here:

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-60139-CV0.pdf

Comment

Comment

Ninth Circuit Affirms that Improperly Filed Appeal does not Toll Motion to Reopen Deadline

The Ninth Circuit has affirmed that an improperly filed appeal of an in absentia order did not toll the 180-day filing deadline for an exceptional circumstances motion to reopen. “While one could argue that Cui is a victim of ineffective assistance of counsel, she failed to raise any such claim andc ontinues to retain her arguably ineffective counsel before our court on appeal. Because we are limited to reviewing the arguments made in the briefs, we conclude both that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining Cui did not timely file a motion to reopen, and that the BIA did not commit legal error in declining to sua sponte reopen her removal proceedings.”

The full text of Cui v. Garland can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/09/23/18-72030.pdf

Comment

Comment

BIA Permits Rescission of In Absentia when Respondent was Late to Court Due to Severe Inclement Weather

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that an Immigration Judge has discretion to rescind an in absentia removal order when the respondent was late for her court hearing to severe inclement weather.

“In determining whether an alien has established exceptional circumstances, the “totality of the circumstances pertaining to the alien’s case should be considered. How late the alien arrives for her scheduled court appearance is a significant factor to consider, along with the reason(s) for her tardiness, in the totality of the circumstances. The totality of the circumstances approach may also take into account any other factors relevant to the alien’s individual case. For example, an alien’s young age may be relevant where there are multiple impediments to attending the removal hearing. Other factors, such as prior attendance at hearings, eligibility for relief from removal, and promptness in filing the motion to reopen may shed light on whether the alien intended to appear on time or otherwise had an incentive to do so.”

“In Matter of S-A-, we did not create a per se rule that traffic conditions cannot be an acceptable reason for a tardy appearance at a hearing. Instead, this Board held that an alien’s uncorroborated general statements will generally be insufficient to meet the burden of proof to establish reasonable cause for a late appearance. We reaffirm this holding. We also take this opportunity to clarify and extend the evidentiary framework in Matter of S-A- to proceedings falling under the exceptional circumstances standard, because this Board has not yet addressed this standard.“

“Pursuant to our de novo review, we conclude that the female respondent has established exceptional circumstances for her tardy appearance under the totality of the circumstances. Where an alien appears late to a removal hearing as a result of weather and traffic conditions, he or she may establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant reopening the removal proceedings where the extent of the tardiness was reasonable given the cause of the delay, the circumstances causing the tardiness were appropriately exceptional on a case-by-case basis, the weather and traffic conditions were not foreseeable, and the alien provided sufficient documentation corroborating the cause of the tardiness. Other factors, such as any prior affirmative application for relief, previous attendance at Immigration Court hearings, and other evidence indicating that the alien intended to appear at the hearing, may support an exceptional circumstances claim.”

“On this record, we conclude that she presented appropriately exceptional circumstances for her tardiness. As the female respondent does not drive, she hired a professional driver, upon whom she relied to arrive at the courtroom on time. Despite this planning, she was tardy because of a snow storm, which caused multiple accidents and severe traffic on several major thoroughfares in Ohio on the morning of her hearing. Moreover, weather reports indicated that the temperature was lower than usual for the time of year. These severe weather and traffic conditions are distinguishable from the ordinary or foreseeable traffic delays at issue in Matter of S-A-. Further, the female respondent’s corroborating information—including the affidavits and the weather and traffic reports—provided sufficient details documenting the reasons for her tardiness.”

The full text of Matter of S-L-H- & L-B-L can be found here:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1408006/download

Comment

Comment

BIA Permits In Absentia for Individual in MPP

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that an Immigration Judge should order removed in absentia an individual subject to the Migrant Protection Protocols (more commonly referred to as the “Remain in Mexico” policy) who received notice of the time and location of his removal hearing.

The full text of Matter of Rodriguez can be found here:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1241341/download

Comment

Comment

BIA Finds no Need to Reopen In Absentia Order when NTA was Missing Time and Date of Hearing

In a pair of decisions, the Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that neither rescission of an in absentia order of removal nor termination of the proceedings is required where a respondent did not appear at a scheduled hearing after being served with a notice to appear that did not specify the time and place of the initial removal hearing, so long as a subsequent notice of hearing specifying that information was properly sent to the respondent.

The full text of Matter of Pena-Mejia can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1164976/download

The full text of Matter of Miranda-Cordiero can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1164981/download

Comment

Comment

Fifth Circuit Limits Collateral Attack on Reinstated Removal Order

The Fifth Circuit has severely limited the ability of a petitioner to collaterally attack a reinstated removal order through a petition for review of the reinstated order. “In sum, if an alien illegally re-enters the United States and his prior removal order is reinstated, then, pursuant to the jurisdiction-stripping provision in § 1231(a)(5), the underlying removal order cannot be reviewed, except through the savings provision in § 1252(a)(2)(D). In order to preserve our jurisdiction under § 1252(a)(2)(D)’s savings provision, an alien must file a petition for review within 30 days of the removal order as required by § 1252(b)(1), in addition to exhausting all available administrative remedies and demonstrating that the initial proceedings constituted a gross miscarriage of justice.”

This case involved an in absentia order, which cannot be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals or to a circuit court, but can only be reopened through a motion to reopen. Thus, this decision essentially prevents any collateral attacks on in absentia removal orders that have been reinstated by the Department of Homeland Security.

The full text of Luna Garcia de Garcia v. Barr can be found here:

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-60526-CV0.pdf

Comment