Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01014/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01014-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alberto Gonzales
Respondent
Mohammed Shawkat Haider
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Alberto Gonzales

is automatically substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as respondent.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 04-3583/06-1014

___________

Mohammed Shawkat Haider, *

*

Petitioner, *

* On Petition for Review of

v. * the Decision of the Board 

* of Immigration Appeals.

Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General *

of the United States of America,1 *

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: November 18, 2005

Filed: February 27, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.

An immigration judge (IJ) entered an order in absentia removing Mohammed

Shawkat Haider to Bangladesh after Haider failed to appear at a removal hearing.

Haider then unsuccessfully sought to reopen the removal proceedings. Haider now

seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the

IJ's refusal to reopen the removal proceedings. We deny Haider's Petition for Review.

Appellate Case: 06-1014 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2006 Entry ID: 2013925
2

In March 2003, the functions of the INS were transferred to the newly formed

Department of Homeland Security. See Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No.

107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002). Because many of the documents in the

record refer to the INS, we will refer to the INS in this opinion.

-2-

I.

On April 16, 2003, Haider, with the help of his attorney, Elizabeth M.

Streefland, filed an Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status

with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).2

 On his application, Haider

listed his address as 250 Grandview Avenue West, Apartment 358, Roseville,

Minnesota. On April 22, the INS initiated removal proceedings against Haider by

personally serving him with a Notice to Appear (NTA). The NTA charged that Haider

was subject to removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) for failing

to comply with the conditions of his nonimmigrant status. The NTA stated that

Haider was admitted to the United States in March 1994 as a nonimmigrant student,

but he had not attended school since October 1994. The NTA contained a case

number, which remained with the case throughout the removal proceedings. The NTA

listed the address that Haider provided in his adjustment-of-status application.

The NTA ordered Haider to appear before an IJ in Bloomington, Minnesota,

"on a date to be set at a time to be set to show why [Haider] should not be removed

from the United States." Certified Admin. Rec. at 551. The NTA warned Haider that

failure to keep his address current could result in removal in absentia:

You are required to provide the INS, in writing, with your full mailing

address . . . . You must notify the Immigration Court immediately . . .

whenever you change your address . . . . Notices of hearing will be

mailed to this address. If you do not . . . provide an address at which you

may be reached during proceedings, then the Government shall not be

required to provide you with written notice of your hearing. If you fail

to attend the hearing at the time and place designated on this notice, or

Appellate Case: 06-1014 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2006 Entry ID: 2013925
-3-

any date and time later directed by the Immigration Court, a removal

order may be made by the immigration judge in your absence.

Id. at 552. The agent serving Haider with the NTA certified that he told Haider of the

consequences of failing to appear.

Shortly after being served with the NTA, Haider moved from apartment 358 to

apartment 159 at the same address. Haider did not notify the INS, the Immigration

Court, or Streefland of his change of address. Haider also did not file a forwarding

address with the U.S. Postal Service. In an affidavit filed with the Immigration Court

approximately one year after he moved, Haider admitted, "I was served with an

N.T.A. (Notice to Appear) for a master calendar hearing—date of which would be

mailed to my address. . . . In May of 2003, I moved from [apartment] 358 to 159 (3rd

floor to 1st floor) of the same apartment building and thus keeping the same street

address and zip code. I forgot to do a change of address with [the] INS or with [my

attorney after I moved]." Id. at 472. Thus, "Haider does not dispute that he changed

addresses and failed to inform the [INS]." Brief of Petitioners at 25.

The INS filed the NTA with the Immigration Court on June 6, 2003, at which

time the Immigration Court scheduled a hearing for August 1 at 11:00 a.m. The

Immigration Court then mailed a Notice of Hearing in Removal Proceedings (NOH)

to Haider at the address listed on the NTA. The NOH was returned as undeliverable.

When Haider failed to appear at his removal hearing, the IJ conducted an in absentia

hearing. After finding that Haider was served with written notice of the hearing and

that he was removable, the IJ entered a removal order against Haider.

On March 3, 2004, Streefland filed with the Immigration Court a Motion to

Reopen Removal Proceedings to Rescind In Absentia Order of Removal (Motion to

Reopen), arguing that neither she nor Haider had received notice of the removal

Appellate Case: 06-1014 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/27/2006 Entry ID: 2013925
3

Attached to the Motion to Reopen was a letter to Haider from the INS dated

April 16, 2003, explaining that the INS had received his adjustment-of-status

application and notifying him that he "must update [his] address within 10 days of an

address change." Certified Admin. Rec. at 527.

-4-

hearing.3

 On March 14, Streefland resubmitted the Motion to Reopen to avoid paying

a filing fee by basing the motion solely on lack of notice. Streefland also filed a

notice of appearance (Form EOIR-28) that she represented Haider in the removal

proceedings. On March 30, the IJ denied the Motion to Reopen. Finding that Haider

was personally served with the NTA, he was informed of the consequences of failing

to appear for a hearing, he was told to keep the Immigration Court informed of any

address changes, he failed to inform the Immigration Court of his address change, and

the NOH was mailed to Haider's last known address, the IJ refused to reopen the

proceedings. The IJ also held that Streefland was not entitled to receive the NOH

because she was not Haider's attorney of record until she filed Form EOIR-28.

In April 2004, Streefland withdrew as Haider's counsel. On May 5, Haider's

new attorney, Maria K. Woroby, filed a Motion to Reopen Removal Proceedings

(Second Motion to Reopen) based on ineffective assistance of counsel. On May 20,

the IJ denied the motion, holding that Haider did not satisfy the requirements for an

ineffective-assistance claim. The IJ also reiterated that Haider was personally served

with the NTA, was advised to keep the Immigration Court informed of any changes

of address, and failed to keep the Court updated. On May 25, Woroby filed with the

Immigration Court a Motion to Reconsider the IJ's denial of Haider's Second Motion

to Reopen. The Motion to Reconsider argued that the Second Motion to Reopen

complied with the procedural requirements to reopen proceedings based on ineffective

assistance of counsel. On June 10, the IJ denied the Motion to Reconsider,

specifically noting that the Motion to Reconsider "did not address the issue of

personally receiving the NTA and failing to keep the Court advised of any changes of

address." Id. at 417-18.

Appellate Case: 06-1014 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/27/2006 Entry ID: 2013925
-5-

Woroby appealed the IJ's June 10 decision to the BIA, arguing that the issues

"center[ed] on the requirements of notice and due process." Id. at 393. Woroby

argued that the removal order was invalid because Haider was not served the NTA,

claiming that the NTA was given to Streefland. On October 14, 2004, the BIA

dismissed Haider's appeal. The BIA initially noted that the appeal was limited to

whether the IJ erred in her June 10 decision to deny the Motion to Reconsider. The

BIA summarized the IJ's decision as denying Haider's attempt to file a third motion

to reopen based on new evidence in pursuing an ineffective-assistance claim. The

BIA also noted that Haider's Motion to Reconsider "failed to challenge or address [the

IJ's] prior determination that he can be constructively charged with having received

notice of the hearing based on his failure to inform the Immigration Court of his

change of address." Id. at 2. The BIA refused to consider evidence and arguments

that were not submitted to the IJ. Relevant here, the BIA specifically noted that

Woroby "argues for the first time that [Haider] never received a copy of the [NTA]

from [Streefland] and as a result he never knew of his duty to inform [the INS] and the

Immigration Court of his change of address." Id. at 3. Rejecting this contention, the

BIA concluded that the IJ did not err in "finding that [Haider] personally received the

[NTA] and that he could be constructively charged with receiving adequate notice of

the time and place of his hearing." Id.

On October 20, 2004, Haider hired a new attorney, who filed in this Court the

Petition for Review, a Motion for Stay of Removal, and a Motion to Vacate Orders

and Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Motion to Dismiss). The Court

granted a Stay of Removal, but ordered that the Motion to Dismiss be taken with the

case submitted to this panel. On November 23, Haider's new attorney filed a Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the United States District Court for the District of

Minnesota, contending that the INS never provided Haider with a valid NTA. The

government later notified the District Court of the enactment of the REAL ID Act of

2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (2005), arguing that the District Court was

required to transfer the habeas case to this Court because the REAL ID Act placed

Appellate Case: 06-1014 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/27/2006 Entry ID: 2013925
-6-

exclusive review of orders of removal with the circuit courts. Concluding that

Haider's habeas petition challenged a final order of removal, the District Court

transferred the habeas case to this Court. Haider filed a Notice of Appeal challenging

the District Court's order transferring the habeas case to this Court. On January 9,

2006, we consolidated the transferred habeas case with the Petition for Review.

Haider contends that his removal proceedings must be reopened because he did

not receive adequate notice of the hearing. Haider maintains that the NTA violated

his due-process rights because it did not give a date and time for the hearing. Haider

also argues that Streefland provided ineffective assistance of counsel because she did

not "affirmatively place herself in [Haider's] place for the purposes of ensuring that

he possessed representation in the [Immigration Court, which] contributed to his

denial of access to a full and fair hearing." Brief of Petitioners at 21.

II.

We will grant Haider's Petition for Review only if we determine that the BIA

abused its discretion in affirming the IJ's refusal to reopen the removal proceedings.

Sukhov v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 568, 570 (8th Cir. 2005). An abuse of discretion occurs

when the BIA's "decision is without rational explanation, departs from established

policies, invidiously discriminates against a particular race or group, or where the

agency fails to consider all factors presented by the alien or distorts important aspects

of the claim." Kanyi v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1087, 1089 (8th Cir. 2005) (quotation

marks and citation omitted). 

A.

In removal proceedings, an alien must be given written notice containing certain

information. 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1) (2000). Relevant here, an alien must be notified

(1) of "[t]he time and place at which the proceedings will be held"; (2) that he must

Appellate Case: 06-1014 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/27/2006 Entry ID: 2013925
4

The INA states that written notice "shall be given in person to the alien," but

allows for "service by mail to the alien or to the alien's counsel of record, if any,"

when "personal service is not practicable." 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1). The INS initiated

removal proceedings against Haider by personally serving him with a written NTA.

The Immigration Court later served a written NOH by mailing it to Haider.

-7-

immediately provide the Attorney General a written record of an address at which the

alien may be contacted about removal proceedings; (3) that he must immediately

provide the Attorney General a written record of any change of address; and (4) that

the failure to update his address could result in the entry of an in absentia removal

order.4

 Id. § 1229(a)(1)(F), (G). Anticipating that times and places of removal

proceedings can change, the INA instructs that aliens be notified of such changes and

of the consequences of failing to attend such proceedings. Id. § 1229(a)(2)(A).

Written notice of such a change is not required, however, when an alien fails to

provide a written record of a change of address. Id. § 1229(a)(2)(B).

The INA does not detail how to serve notice of a hearing. To fill in the blanks,

regulations authorize which immigration officers may serve an NTA, 8 C.F.R. § 239.1

(2005), providing "the time, place and date of the initial removal hearing, where

practicable," id. § 1003.18(b). If the NTA does not contain this information, however,

then the Immigration Court must "schedul[e] the initial removal hearing and provid[e]

notice to the government and the alien of the time, place, and date of hearing." Id.

Failing to appear at a removal hearing bears harsh consequences:

Any alien who, after written notice required under [8 U.S.C.

§ 1229(a)(1) or (2)] has been provided to the alien or the alien's counsel

of record, does not attend a proceeding . . . shall be ordered removed in

absentia if the [INS] establishes by clear, unequivocal, and convincing

evidence that the written notice was so provided and that the alien is

removable . . . . The written notice by the Attorney General shall be

Appellate Case: 06-1014 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/27/2006 Entry ID: 2013925
-8-

considered sufficient . . . if provided at the most recent address provided

under [8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(F)].

8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A); see Dominguez v. United States Attorney Gen., 284 F.3d

1258, 1260 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) ("The statute clearly provides that notice to

the alien at the most recent address provided by the alien is sufficient notice, and that

there can be an in absentia removal after such notice."). The INA reiterates that no

written notice is necessary under § 1229a(b)(5)(A) "if the alien has failed to provide

the address required under" § 1229(a)(1)(F). 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(B). When

Haider failed to appear at his hearing, the IJ issued an in absentia removal order

against Haider. Haider then repeatedly sought, and failed, to reopen his removal

proceedings. An IJ may rescind an in absentia removal order if the alien's failure to

appear was based on "exceptional circumstances" or when an alien can demonstrate

that he did not receive proper notice under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1) or (2). Id.

§ 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i), (ii). Haider has sought to reopen his removal proceedings based

on lack of notice.

Concluding that the written notices served on Haider satisfied § 1229(a)(1)'s

requirements, we hold that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in affirming the IJ's

denial of the Motion to Reconsider. See Rahimov v. Gonzales, 152 Fed. Appx. 174,

174–176 (3d Cir. 2005) (denying petition for review to reopen in absentia removal

proceedings where initial notice of removal contained "all of the statutorily required

elements except the date and time of the removal proceeding," but subsequent notice

mailed by Immigration Court to alien at his listed address contained time and date of

hearing, even though alien claimed he did not receive that notice). We also conclude

that the IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying the motions to reopen. See Zapata

v. Ashcroft, 93 Fed. Appx. 420, 424 (3d Cir. 2004) (holding "that the IJ did not abuse

his discretion when he determined that Zapata's motion to reopen based on a lack of

notice should not be granted, given his failure to inform the government of his change

of address as required").

Appellate Case: 06-1014 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/27/2006 Entry ID: 2013925
5

Haider essentially argues that the NTA was meaningless because it did not

include the date and time of his removal hearing. That is nonsense. The NTA played

a crucial role in the removal proceedings by (1) notifying Haider that removal

proceedings had been initiated against him; (2) explaining why he was removable;

(3) informing Haider that the date and time of his removal hearing would be set at a

later date; (4) informing Haider that the NOH would be mailed to the address that he

provided to the INS; (5) clearly and forcefully ordering Haider to keep the INS or the

Immigration Court informed of his current address; and (6) warning Haider that

failure to update his address could result in removal in absentia. Haider had no

unfettered right to ignore the NTA and change his address without notifying the INS

or the Immigration Court.

-9-

Throughout the three years of this litigation, Haider has contended that his

removal proceedings must be reopened because the NTA failed to notify him of the

date and time of his removal hearing. This contention misses the mark because it

focuses only on the NTA. The INA simply requires that an alien be provided written

notice of his hearing; it does not require that the NTA served on Haider satisfy all of

§ 1229(a)(1)'s notice requirements. Our reading of the INA and the regulations

compels the conclusion that the NTA and the NOH, which were properly served on

Haider, combined to provide the requisite notice. The NTA initiated removal

proceedings against Haider and informed him that an NOH would be mailed to the

address listed on the NTA.5

 And Haider's affidavit reveals that he understood that this

would happen. As promised, the Immigration Court later mailed the NOH containing

the date and time of the hearing to Haider. We see nothing unlawful about this

conduct. Indeed, the regulations reasonably authorize the Immigration Court to set

the date and time of its own hearings and provide due notice to the alien. The only

reason Haider did not receive the NOH was because he moved without notifying the

INS, the Immigration Court, the U.S. Postal Service, or even Streefland of his new

address. See United States v. Estrada-Trochez, 66 F.3d 733, 736 (5th Cir. 1995)

(explaining that "the ultimate fault [for missing a hearing] lies with the [alien] for his

failure to comply with a law [requiring the alien to update his address] that is essential

to the administration of the INS"). 

Appellate Case: 06-1014 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/27/2006 Entry ID: 2013925
-10-

We wish to be clear that the NTA, if it were the only notice served on Haider

in this case, would not have authorized in absentia removal because Haider would not

have been served notice of the date and time of the hearing as required by

§ 1229(a)(1). We also note that Haider does not claim that the NOH with the date and

time of the hearing was mailed to the correct address, i.e., apartment 358, but he

simply did not receive it. See Ghounem v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 740, 743–45 (8th Cir.

2004) (granting petition for review because the alien rebutted the presumption that he

received the NOH that was mailed to the correct address such that the only notice that

the alien had received was an NTA lacking the date and time of the hearing). The

NOH containing the date and time of the hearing was properly served on Haider by

mail. The only reason Haider did not receive the NOH was because he moved without

updating his address. The lesson of this case is clear—once the INS initiates removal

proceedings by personally serving an alien with an NTA, the alien must remain

vigilant and proactive by keeping the INS and the Immigration Court informed of any

address changes.

B.

Haider also argues that his due-process rights were violated because of lack of

notice. "Due process is satisfied so long as the method of notice is conducted in a

manner reasonably calculated to ensure that notice reaches the alien." Dominguez,

284 F.3d at 1259 (quotation marks and citations omitted); see Mullane v. Cent.

Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 318 (1950) (stating "that within the limits

of practicability notice must be such as is reasonably calculated to reach interested

parties"). In the immigration context, "[n]otice of an exclusion hearing sent by regular

mail to the last address provided by the alien satisfies the requirements of

constitutional due process." Gurung v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 718, 721 (10th Cir. 2004).

We hold that Haider's due-process rights were not violated. Haider supplied the INS,

and thus the Immigration Court, with his address, but later moved without notifying

either the INS or the Immigration Court. The Immigration Court complied with its

Appellate Case: 06-1014 Page: 10 Date Filed: 02/27/2006 Entry ID: 2013925
-11-

duty of mailing the NOH to Haider at the address listed in the NTA. The only reason

Haider did not receive the NOH was because he moved without complying with his

duty to update his mailing address. We conclude that the Immigration Court's method

of service was reasonably calculated to ensure that Haider received notice of his

removal hearing. Thus, it satisfies due-process requirements. See Estrada-Trochez,

66 F.3d at 736 (holding that the notice of a removal hearing sent to an alien via firstclass mail at his last-known address satisfied due-process requirements where the alien

moved without informing the INS of his new address).

C.

Haider contends that he was removed in absentia because Streefland provided

ineffective assistance. We disagree. First, we note that Haider not only failed to

notify the INS or the Immigration Court that he had changed addresses, but he also

failed to inform Streefland of his new address until after Haider missed his removal

hearing. Even Streefland could not have notified the INS or the Immigration Court

of Haider's new address until it was too late. Second, the INS and the Immigration

Court complied with the INA by serving the notices on Haider. Third, Streefland was

not Haider's attorney of record in the removal proceedings until she filed her notice

of appearance with the Immigration Court on March 16, 2004, nearly a year after the

removal hearing. See Ghounem, 378 F.3d at 742 n.2 (stating that an attorney who

filed an appearance on behalf of an alien with the INS is not considered the alien's

attorney of record with the Immigration Court until the attorney files an appearance

with that court); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.17(a) (requiring an attorney representing an alien in

a removal proceeding to file a notice of appearance on Form EOIR-28 with the

Immigration Court even if the attorney previously filed a notice of appearance with

the INS).

Although Haider blames Streefland (and the IJ and the BIA) for his failure to

attend the removal hearing, the blame lies solely with Haider. His failure simply to

Appellate Case: 06-1014 Page: 11 Date Filed: 02/27/2006 Entry ID: 2013925
-12-

notify the INS or the Immigration Court of his change of address, after the INS

initiated removal proceedings against him and warned him of the dire consequences

of failing to keep his address current with the INS, caused him to miss his opportunity

to be present at his removal hearing. Perhaps Streefland best explained the root of the

problem: "I relied on Mr. Haider receiving his hearing notice as the best method to

know when he had a court hearing. When he moved without notifying the

government, then the situation arose where neither he nor I received a hearing notice."

Certified Admin. Rec. at 461.

D.

Haider's Motion to Dismiss argues that this Court lacks jurisdiction to review

the BIA's decision because the IJ and the BIA lacked jurisdiction to issue their

decisions. Specifically, Haider contends that jurisdiction never vested with the

Immigration Court because the NTA did not include the date and time of the removal

hearing. We disagree. In removal proceedings, jurisdiction vests with the

Immigration Court when the INS files a charging document with the Court. 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.14(a). In this case, the INS filed the NTA, i.e., the charging document, with

the Immigration Court on June 6, 2003. For the reasons already discussed, we

conclude that the NTA was sufficient to initiate removal proceedings against Haider

and thereby vest the Immigration Court with jurisdiction. Therefore, we deny Haider's

Motion to Dismiss.

E.

The final issue to address is Haider's appeal of the District Court's decision to

transfer Haider's habeas case to this Court. The District Court concluded that it was

"left with the inescapable conclusion that [Haider]'s challenge to the constitutionality

of the notice provided to him, is, in effect, a challenge to the ultimate Order of

Removal." Report & Recommendation at 8. The Petition for Review that Haider filed

Appellate Case: 06-1014 Page: 12 Date Filed: 02/27/2006 Entry ID: 2013925
-13-

with this Court vested in us "the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an

order of removal." REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, Div. B, Title I, §

106(a), 119 Stat. 231, 310 (2005) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5)). We agree with

the District Court that Haider makes the same argument, i.e., that the in absentia

removal order was invalid due to lack of notice, in his Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus that he makes in his Petition for Review. Because Haider's Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus does nothing more than attack the IJ's removal order, our Court

"shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review." Accordingly, we conclude

that the District Court rightly complied with the REAL ID Act by transferring Haider's

habeas case to us. See id. § 106(c), 119 Stat. at 311 ("If an alien's case, brought under

[8 U.S.C. § 2241] and challenging a final administrative order of removal . . ., is

pending in a district court on the date of the enactment of this division, then the

district court shall transfer the case (or the part of the case that challenges the order

of removal . . .) to the court of appeals for the circuit in which a petition for review

could have been properly filed."). The reasons stated above for denying Haider's

Petition for Review resolve the transferred case as well. Id. ("The court of appeals

shall treat the transferred case as if it had been filed pursuant to a petition for

review.").

III.

For the reasons discussed, we deny the Petition for Review, deny the Motion

to Dismiss, affirm the District Court's decision to transfer Haider's habeas case to this

Court, and deny his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Finally, we direct the Clerk

of Court to vacate Haider's Stay of Removal when our mandate issues.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1014 Page: 13 Date Filed: 02/27/2006 Entry ID: 2013925