Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-03195/USCOURTS-ca8-15-03195-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robinson Diaz
Petitioner
Loretta E. Lynch
Respondent

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-3195

___________________________

Robinson Diaz

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

 Submitted: May 17, 2016

 Filed: June 1, 2016

[Published]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Robinson Alirio Diaz, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the country illegally. 

In 2011, the Department of Homeland Security sent him, by regular mail, a Notice to

Appear in removal proceedings. It advised Diaz he needed to appear at the removal

hearing or risk an in absentia removal order. It did not provide the date and time of

the hearing. A week later, the immigration court sent Diaz, by regular mail, a Notice

Appellate Case: 15-3195 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/01/2016 Entry ID: 4405563 
of Hearing of Removal Proceedings, stating the date and time of the hearing. Diaz

did not show up at the hearing. The immigration judge entered an in absentia

removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A) (authorizing an immigration judge to

issue in absentia orders if the alien receives notice of the hearing, fails to appear, and

the government proves removability by “clear, unequivocal, and convincing

evidence”). 

Two years later, DHS apprehended Diaz and began removal proceedings. He

moved to reopen the in absentia removal order, arguing he never received the Notice

of Hearing. Alternatively, he moved to reopen to apply for asylum. The immigration

judge denied both motions, and the BIA affirmed. Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252, this court denies the petition for review. 

 

This court reviews denials of motionsto reopen for abuse of discretion. Alemu

v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 907, 909 (8th Cir. 2007). “The [BIA] abuses its discretion

where it gives no rational explanation for its decision; departs from its established

policies without explanation;relies on impermissible factors orlegal error; or ignores

or distorts the record evidence.” Id. This court reviews legal questions de novo. Vue

v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 858, 859 (8th Cir. 2007). 

Diaz argues he did not receive the Notice of Hearing, rendering the removal

order unlawful and in violation of his due process rights. See § 1229a(b)(5)(C)

(allowing a motion to reopen at any time for failure to provide notice). The

government generally must provide “a written notice” of a removal hearing and give

it to the alien “in person . . . (or, if personal service is not practicable, through service

by mail to the alien or to the alien’s counsel of record if any). . . .” § 1229(a)(1). 

“Service by mail under this section shall be sufficient if there is proof of attempted

delivery to the last address provided by the alien. . . .” § 1229(c). Service by mail

also satisfies the requirements of due process. See Haider v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 902,

908 (8th Cir. 2006). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-3195 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/01/2016 Entry ID: 4405563 
Notice by regular mail is presumed to be delivered. Ghounem v. Ashcroft, 378

F.3d 740, 744 (8th Cir. 2004) (acknowledging the presumption, which is a weaker

presumption than that accorded notice sent by certifiedmail). In determining whether

an alien has overcome this presumption, the immigration judge considers (1) the

alien’s affidavit, (2) affidavits from family members or others with personal

knowledge, (3) the alien’s due diligence, after learning of the in absentia order, in

seeking to redress the situation, (4) applicationsfor relief, demonstrating the alien had

an incentive to appear, (5) previous attendance at immigration hearings, and (6) any

other evidence. See Matter of M-R-A-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 665, 674 (BIA 2008). See

also Ghounem, 378 F.3d at 744 (“Where a petitioner actually initiates a proceeding

to obtain a benefit, appears at an earlier hearing, and has no motive to avoid the

hearing, a sworn affidavit . . . should ordinarily be sufficient to rebut the presumption

of delivery. . . .”). 

Diaz submitted an affidavit, claiming he never received the Notice of Hearing. 

However, he admitted receiving the Notice to Appear, sent one week earlier to the

same address. Diaz had not filed for any type of relief, had never appeared at an

immigration hearing, and had no incentive to attend the removal hearing because his

removability was not in doubt. He did nothing to redress the in absentia order until

apprehended by DHS two yearslater. Diaz’s affidavit isinsufficient to overcome the

presumption of delivery. 

Diaz also challenges the denial of his motion to reopen to apply for asylum. 

Diaz did not file this motion until two years after the immigration judge entered the

order of removal. His motion to reopen is thus time-barred, unless he demonstrates

his application for asylum is “based on changed country conditions. . . .” See

§§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), (ii). Evidence of the changed conditions must not have been

available or discoverable at the time of the 2011 hearing. See § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).

-3-

Appellate Case: 15-3195 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/01/2016 Entry ID: 4405563 
Diaz claims he “recently” learned of the violent conditions in El Salvador. He

also submits that his step-father was murdered (but does not provide the date of that

murder). Neither fact demonstrates a change in conditions between the 2011 hearing

and his 2013 motion to reopen. See Zheng v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 893, 896 (8th Cir.

2008). 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen the in

absentia order of removal, or the untimely motion to reopen to apply for asylum. 

* * * * * * *

The petition for review is denied.

______________________________

-4-

Appellate Case: 15-3195 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/01/2016 Entry ID: 4405563