NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0306n.06 F iled: April 27, 2009 No. 08-3720 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT

F RANCISCO JAVIER GASCARO DRI GUEZ, P etitioner , v. ERIC H. HOL DER, United States At torney G e ne r al, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL F RO M T HE B OA RD O F IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS

BEF OR E: M ER RI TT, CO OK , a nd WH ITE, Ci r c uitJudg e s. MERRITT , Ci rcuit Judge. Petitioner Fra ncisco Javier Ga sca- Rodrigue z appeals the d ec i s i o no f t h e B o ar d

o f Imm i gra t i o nAp p ea l s d en y i n g h i s m o t i o nt o r e o p en h i s ca s e f o l l o wi n g a deportation or der issued in a bs e nti a . An I mmigration J udg e dismissed petitioner’s I -485 application on g rounds that he did not appe ar at a ca lendar call (not a

hear ing on the merits), eve n though the re is a serious question base d on the re cord be fo re u s as to whether petitioner re ceive d notice of the cale ndar c all. There is no specific or t estimonial rebuttal of petitioner’s counsel’s s pecif ic denial that

any no tic e wa s r e c e ive d. Up on fi nd ingtha

t th e B oa rd did no t a llo w Ga sc a -R od ri g ue z an a de qu a te opportunity

to rebut the pre sumption t hat he rece ived not ice of a hearing , we r ever se and r emand f or a hearing on the m erits of Gasc a-Rodrig uez’s claim t hat he a

nd his attorney

did not rece ive notice. BACK GR OUNDNo. 08-3720

Gasca-R odriguez v. Holder

-2- Petitioner Gasca -Rodrig uez is a n ative and c itiz en of Me x ico. He la st entere d the United States in 1991 without i nspection bef ore a n I mmigration Of

fice r. He has three children w ho reside with him in t he United States, a ll of whom are Americ an citizens. Hi s father also reside s in the United States as a pe rmane nt resident al i en . On Octobe r 7, 2005, the De partment of H omeland Security issued Gasc a-Rodriguez a Notice to Appea r, alleging that he was subject t o remova l under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6) (A)( i), as an a lien prese nt in the Un i t ed States without being a dmitted or parole d. To avoid remova l, G asca -Rodrig uez’s fathe r filed a n I -130 visa petition on his son’s behalf, and Ga sca- Rodrigue z subm itted an I -485 application for adjustment of status w ith Ci tiz enship and I mmigration Services alongwith a $1000 filing fee and ce rtain biometric data. Gasc a-Rodriguez appea

red at his first master ca lendar hear ing be fore the immigration court pro se. The rea fter, he hired a n attorney who appe are d with him at all later hea ring s and continues to repre sent him in the curre nt appea l. On Marc h 21, 2006, Gasc a-Rodriguez and his attorney appea red at a s econd ma ster ca lendar hear ing. A t the hear ing, the court sche duled Gasc aRodrigue z’s indivi dual hea ring for J une 20, 2007. On J uly 24, 2006, the immigration court mailed Gasc a-Rodriguez’s attorney a noti ce that Gasc a-Rodriguez had bee n schedule d for a nother master cale ndar he aringon September 26, 2006. Gasc a-Rodriguez a nd his attorney

appea red at that hear ing and, ac cordingto the g overnme nt, wer e at that time notified to appea r at y et another master c alenda r hear i ng schedule d for Ma rch 13, 2007. G asca -Rodrig uez and his attorney alleg e that they

never

rec eived suc h notice and wer e, there fore , unawa re of the hear ing. When neither Ga sca- Rodrigue z nor hi s attorney

appea red at the Marc h 13, 2007, hear ing, the immigration judge or dere d Gasc aRodrigue z removed in a bs e nti a under 8 U .S.C. § 1229a(b)(5) (A).No. 08-3720

Gasca-R odriguez v. Holder

-3- On April 10, 2007, Ga sca- Rodrigue z filed a motion to reopen his ca se, ar g uing that neither he nor his attorne y

rec eived notice of the ne w hea ring date. Submitted with the m otion was an aff idavit from the attorney ’s s ecr etar y stating that the l aw office ne ver r ece ived any corr espondenc e from the immigr ation court informing them of t he new hear ing date. The gove rnment opposed the motion on the g rounds that both oral a nd written notice of

the Marc h 13 hear ing w ere g iven at the S e p t e mb e r 2 6 h e ar i n g . T h e r e i s n o t r an s c r i p t o f t h e S e p t e m b e r 2 6 h e ar i n g , s o i t i s i mp o s s i b l e to know whethe r ora l notice was inde ed g iven; howeve r, the g overnme nt produce d a copy of a notice signe d by the immigration court cler k indicating that written notice w as hand- deli v ere d to Gasca

Rodrigue z’s attorney

at the September

26 h ea ri ng . On April 19, 2007, in a one -pag e orde r, the immigration judge de nied Gasc a-Rodriguez’s motion to reopen base d on a finding that both oral and

wr i t t en n o t i ce h adb ee ngi v en at t h e S ep t em b er 2 6 , 2 0 0 6 , h ea ri n g. On May 7, 200 7 , Gasca-Rodrig uez filed a notice of appe al with the B oard of I mmigration Appea ls. I n a lengthy brief, his attorney ag ain asserted t hat no notice was g iven. Were it otherwise , he ar g ued, Ga sca- Rodrigue z’s absence would make no se nse, espe cially g iven his appea

ranc e at numerous other

hear ings, the acc eptanc e of his fathe r’s I -130 petition, his pending I -485 application fo r ad j ustment of status, his pay ment of a $1000 f

ee, a nd, moreove r, the pre sence of his three children wi t h whom he cle arly wishes to rema in. On May 16, 2008, the B oard of

I mmigration Appea ls affirme d the opinion of the immigration judg e in a short, thre e-pa rag raph or der. I

n pertinent part, the B oard determined that written not ice of a hea ring is sufficient notice, a nd that the alleg ed notice of the hear ing indicated that it was hand- delivere d to Gasc a-Rodriguez’s attorney . The B oard did not consider any

of the a rg uments advanc ed by

Gasc a- R o drig uez, other than to note that theNo. 08-3720

Gasca-R odriguez v. Holder

-4- aff idavit from the attorne y ’s sec reta ry was irrele vant bec ause the dispute turned on whe ther notice

wa s d el i v er edt o t h e a t t o rn ey i n -p er s o nat t h e h ea ri n g.

DI SCU SSIO N I n h is b ri e f t o th is c ourt , G a sc a -R od ri g ue z ch a lle nges th e B oa rd of I mmi g ra tio n App e a ls’ d en i al o f h i s m o t i o nt o re o p en o nDu e P ro ce s s gro u n d s . T h i s ar gu m en t i s wi t h o u t m er i t

. Al t h o u gh

a lie ns e njo y

a Du e Proces s ri g ht t o a “ fu ll a nd fa ir he ari ng ” be fo re an im mig ra tio n c ourt , Hu ic oc he a- Go me

z v . I NS , 2 37 F .3 d 6 96 , 6 99 (6 th C ir . 2 001), th is rig ht d oe s n ot e xten d to discretionar

y relief from re moval. Se e As hk i v . I NS , 2 33 F .3 d 9 13 , 9 21 (6 th C ir . 2 00 0) . Abs e nt a proper ty interest in the rig ht claimed, it is imposs ible to show a Due Process violation. See H anna v. Gonzales , 128 F. App’ x 478, 481 (6th Cir. 2005). The fa ilure of Ga sca- Rodrigue z’s Due Proce s s ch al l enge notwithstanding , the B oard of I mmigration Appeals’ de nial of his motion to reopen is still befor e us. I n this reg ard, w e note that Ga sc a -R od

ri g ue z’s a pp e a l to the B oa

rd fo c us e d on re bu tti ng the pr e su mpt ion of no tic e and

that hi s petition to this court asks in the br oadest ter ms possibl e for

revie w of the B oard’ s decision. See J .A. at 12-17. The g overnme nt contends that, despite these f actor s, we may

only revie w Gasc aRod ri g ue z’s Du e Pr oc e ss c la im. Th is a rgume nt i s n ot w e ll t a ke n. Th e g e ne ra l r ule that argume nts not raised in an opening brief are wa ived is “prude ntial and not jurisdictional.” Y oughiogheny and Ohio Coal Co. v. Milli ken , 2 0 0 F. 3 d 9 4 2 , 9 5 5 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 9 9 ) ( ci t i n g Dorris v. Absher , 179 F.3d 420, 425 (6th Cir. 1999)). Turning square ly

to the Boa

rd of Immigration Appeals’ de cision, we review the de nial of a motion to reope n for abuse of discr etion. INS v. Abudu , 485 U.S. 94, 96 ( 1988). The B oard a busesNo. 08-3720

Gasca-R odriguez v. Holder

-5- its discretion when it ac ts arbitrar ily , irrationally , or contra ry to law. Ss waj

je v . A sh c ro

ft , 350 F.3d 528, 532 (6th Cir. 2003). An order of removal enter ed in a bs e nti a may be re sc ind e d if

the a lie n d e mon str a te s th a t hi s or her failure to appea

r wa s cause d by

“exceptional cir cumstance s” or the a bsence of notice. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5) (C). On appea l, our review is limit ed to “( 1) the va lidity of the notice that was provided to the a lien; (2) the reasons the a lien g ives for not attending the proce eding ; and (3) whether the alien is removable.” Ramirez v. G onzales , 247 F. App’x 782, 784-85 ( 6th Cir. 2007) (quotations omitted). “An a lien bear s the burden of d em o n s t ra t i n g lack of notice.” Ablahad v. Gonzales , 217 F. App’ x 470, 474 (6th Cir. 2 0 0 7 ). W h en considering a lac k of notice, the Boa rd “must consider a ll releva nt evidence, including c ircumstantial evidenc e, off ere d to rebut the p re s u m p tion of rec eipt.” Mec aj v. Muk asey , 2 6 3 F. Ap p ’x 4 4 9 , 4 5 1 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( ci t i n g Lopes v. Gonzales , 468 F.3d 81, 86 ( 2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam)). Her e, the B oard summarily denied Ga sca- Rodrigue z’s moti on to reope n without considering all rele van t e v id e n c e , n a me ly , th e n u me r o u s f a c to r s li s te d

b y G a s c a - Ro dr igu e z’ s a tt o r n e y w h ic h rende red Ga sca- Rodrigue z’s absence from the Ma rch 13, 2007, he aringcompletely anomalous

a bs e nt l a c k o f no tic e . Th e se fa c tor s inc lud e the fa c ts that Ga sc a -R od ri g ue z: ( 1) hir e d a

n atto rn e y to repr esent him in the immigration pr ocee dings; (2) a ppear ed at f

our ea rlier immigr ation hear ings; (3) fi le d a n I -4 85 a pp lic a tio n f

or a dju stm e nt o f s ta tus ; ( 4) ha d h is f a the r f ile an I -1 30 peti ti on

on his be ha lf (w hic h wou ld have lik e ly pe rm itt e d Ga sc a -R od ri g ue z to re ma in in the Un ite d Stat e s) ; ( 5) pa id a $1000 filing fee to Cit izenship a n d I mmigration Services; (6) submitted biometric data to the g overnme nt to supplement his I -485 application; (7) c ontinued to file materia ls with the imm igr ationNo. 08-3720

Gasca-R odriguez v. Holder

-6- court (thr oug h his attorney ) following the September 26, 2006, hear ing in anticipation of the June 20, 2007, individual hearing ; and (8) desired to rema in in the United States with his three c hildren. I n view of the prec eding fac tors, and Ga sca- Rodrigue z’s attorney ’s claim (albe it not in the form of a n aff idavit) that he ne ver r ece ived notice, ther e is a serious question as to whether notice of the Mar ch 13, 2007, hea ring was indee d provided in this case . Acc ording ly , the B oard’ s failure to consider these fac tors rende rs its decision an abuse of discre tion. See Mec aj , 263 F. App’ x

a t 45 1- 53 ; Lopes , 468 F.3d at 85-86. CO NC LU SION For the fore g oing r easons, we reve rse the decision of the Boa rd of I mmigration Appeals and

r e ma n d f o r a h e ar in g o n th e me r it s o f G a s c a - Ro dr igu e z’ s c la im th a t h e an d h is a tt o r n e y d id not

rec eive notice

.