FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A ugus t 31, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 13592 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N o. A 78- 952- 040 O R M I D A C R U Z P E R E I R A , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U N I T E D S T A T E S A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ N o. 04- 13593 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N o. A 78- 952- 037 C L A R A L O R E T A C O M E Z C R U Z , P et i t i on er , v ersu sThis C ourt gra nte d Cr uz- Pere ira ’sand

Go me z-C ruz’smotion

to c on so lidatethe ir 1 appeals. Additionally , their ca ses were consolidate d throughout all of the administrative proc e e ding s. 2 U N I T E D S T A T E S A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i ons f

orR e vi e w of

aD e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( A ugus t31, 2005) B ef ore A N D E R S O N , B L A C K and H U L L , C i rc ui tJudg es P E R C UR I AM O rm i da C ruz P er ei ra(“ C ruz- P er ei ra ”) and h eradul tdaug ht er , C l ar a G om ez C ruz ( “ G om e z - C ruz ” ) , both c i t i z e ns a nd na t i ona l s of C uba , pe t i t i on thi s c our tf or re v iew o f a d ec isio n o f th e B o ar d o f I m m ig ra ti o n A p p ea ls (“B IA ”) . T h e B IA ’s d eci si o n affi rm ed th e Im m i g rat i o n Ju d g e’ s (“ IJ’ s”) d en i al o f th e p et i t i o n ers’ m ot i on t o rec on si der the IJ ’ s pri or rul i ng re fusi ng t o reopen thei r r em ov al pr oc e e di ngs . A f

t e rr e vi e w , w e di s m i s s the pe t i t i on i n pa r tf orl a c k of

j ur i s di c t i on a n d d e n y it in p a r t. 1 I . B AC KG RO UN D O n A ug ust22 , 20 02 , C ruz- P er ei raand G om ez -C ruz a rr i ved atthe G at ew ay por tof e ntry t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s i n B r ow ns vi l l e , T e xa s , a nd appl i e d f ora dm i s s i on3

as i nt ended i m m i grant s. B ec ause nei ther had val i d entrydo cum ent s, they w er e e a c h s e rv e d w ith aN o tic e to A p p e a r( “N T A ” ) , c h a r g in g th a t th e y w e r e s u b je c t to r e m o v a l p u r s u a n t to I N A § 2 1 2 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( A ) ( i) ( I ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( A ) ( i) ( I ) . E a c h pe t i t i one r ’ s N T A i ndi c a t e d tha tthe t i m e a nd da t e of he rr e m ova l he a r i ng b e f o r e a n I J w a s “[ t]o b e d e te rm in e d .” T he pe t i t i one r s w e r e the n pa r ol e d i nt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s . I m m i gr a t i on a uthor i t i e s r e qui r e d e a c h pe t i t i one rt o pr ovi de a n a ddr e s s a tw hi c h the y c oul d be c ont a c t e d. C ruz - P e r e i r a ’ s s t a t e d tha the ra ddr e s s i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s w a s t o be

“ 1 7 1 0 SW 8 6 th A v e . , M i r a ma r , FL 3 3 0 2 5 . ” G o me z - Cru z p r o v i d e d th e s a me addres s, “ 17 10 S W 86 th A ve. , M i ra m arF L , ” e xceptthatshe l i st ed the zi p cod e a s “3 3 0 2 3 ” in s te a d o f

“3 3 0 2 5 .” A . N o t i c e a nd O r i g i na lR e m o v a lPr o c e e di ng O n S ept em ber 5, 20 02 , a “N ot i ce of H ea ri ng i n R em ov al P roce edi ng ” w as m ai l ed fro m th e Im m i g rat i o n C o u rti n M i am i , F l o ri d a t o each p et i t i o n er. T h ese not i c e s s t a t e d tha tthe pe t i t i one r s ’ he a r i ng w oul d oc c uron M a y 9, 2003, a t9: 00 a .m . O n e n o tic e w a s p r o p e r ly a d d r e s s e d to C ru z - P e r e ir aa t “1 7 1 0 S .W . 8 6 th A v e ., M i ra m ar , F L 33 02 5, ” a s thi s w as the addres s C ruz- P er ei ragave. T he other not i ce w a s i n c o rr e c t l ya d d r e s s e d t o G o me z - Cru z a t“ 1 7 1 0 S. W . 8 6 th A v e . , M i a mi , FL 33 02 3. ” T he no t i ce i ncorrec t l y l i st ed the ci ty a s M i am i , as the address G om ez C ruz ga ve w a s i n M i r a m a r , notM i a m i . H ow e ve r , the not i c e di d c orr e c t l y l i s ttheCruz-Pereira claims that she did not rec eive that October 10 noticedespite its being 2 mailed to the address she g ave. 4 zi p cod e i ncorrec t l y gi ven b y G om ez -C ruz. D es pi t e these m i st akes , the pet i t i on er s c o n c e d e th a t th e y r e c e iv e d th e s e n o tic e s . T h e n o tic e s c o n ta in e d th e f o llo w in g la n g u a g e in s tru c tin g th e p e titio n e r s to n o tif y th e I m m ig r a tio n C o u r t if th e a d d r e s s c o n ta in e d o n th e n o tic e w a s in c o rr e c t: I F YOU R ADD RE SS I S NOT LI ST ED ON THE N O TI CE TO AP P E AR , OR I T I S NO T C ORR E C T , WI T HI N F I VE DA YS OF T HI S NO T I C E YO U MUS T P R OV I DE T O T HE I M M I GR AT I ON CO U R T I N M I A M I , FL [ A FO RM W I TH Y O U R CO RRECT AD DRES S] . . . . CORR ES POND ENCE FR OM THE C OU RT , I NC L UD I NG HE AR I NG NO T I C E S , WI L L B E S E NT TO T HE M OST R EC ENT ADD RE SS YO U H AV E P ROVI DE D A ND W I LL BE CO N SI D ERED SU FFI C I EN T N O TI CE TO Y O U A N D TH ESE P R O C E E D I N G S C A N G O F O R W A R D I N Y O U R A B S E N C E . D e s pi t e the i nc orr e c ta ddr e s s on he rnot i c e , G om e z - C ruz di d notf i l e a ny c ha nge of a d d r e s s f o rm. T h e I m m ig r a tio n C o u r t’s r e c o r d s in d ic a te th a t as e c o n d n o tic e w a s s e n t to ea ch pet i t i on eron O ct ob er10 , 20 02 . T he se cond no t i ce s i nform ed pet i t i on er s of a d i fferen td at e, F eb ru ary 2 1 , 2 0 0 3 , o n w h i ch th ei r h eari n g w as t o o ccu r. T h ese s e c ond not i c e s w e r e s e nti n the s a m e m a nne ra s the S e pt e m be r5 not i c e s , be i ng m a i l e d t o C ruz - P e r e i r aa tthe c orr e c ta ddr e s s i n M i r a m a ra nd t o G om e z - C ruz a tthe i n co rrectad d ress i n M i am i . P et i t i o n ers cl ai m th atth ey d i d n o trecei v e th ese n o t i ces. 25

P et i t i on er s di d n otappear a tthe F ebruary21 , 20 03 hear i ng . T he IJordered them re m ov ed i n absent i a. A n O rderof R em ov al , dat ed F ebruary21 , 20 03 , w as se ntt o the sa m e a dd re ss es (one corre ct , on e i ncorrec t ) i nform i ng the pet i t i on er s th atth ey h ad b een o rd ered rem o v ed . P et i t i o n ers co n ced e th atth ey received th ese or de r s , butc l a i m tha tthe y w e r e c om pl e t e l y s urpr i s e d t o l e a rn of the F e brua ry 21, 2003, he a r i ng da t e a nd ha d be e n pr e pa r i ng t o a tt e nd ahe a r i ng on M a y 9, 2003. B . A t t e m p t t o R e op e n P r oc e e d i n gs O n A p r il 2 8 , 2 0 0 3 , th e p e titio n e r s m o v e d to r e o p e n th e r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s . G om ez -C ruz a rgued thatshe di d n otre ce i ve the O ct ob er10 no t i ce of the F ebruary 21 hear i ng because the no t i ce w as se ntt o M i am i , an i ncorrec taddres s. C ruzP e r e i r ai ndi c a t e d tha ts he di d notknow w hy s he di d notr e c e i ve the O c t obe r10 not i c e , buta s s e r t e d tha ti tm a y ha ve be e n r e l a t e d t o the i nc orr e c ta ddr e s s us e d f or h e rd a u g h te r . I n a n or de rda t e d M a y 8, 2003, the I J de ni e d the i rm ot i on t o r e ope n, s t a t i ng thatthe pet i t i on er s had “ no tes t abl i shed a l ac k o f not i ce for [ thei r] re m ov al h e a r i n g . ” T h e I J r e a s o n e d th a t( 1 ) th e n o t i c e wa s m a i l e d , ( 2 ) “ T HE NO T I C E WAS N O T R E T U RN E D , ” a nd (3) “ the re spon dent [s ] ac kn ow l edge[] thati ti s [ thei r] a d d r e s s . ” P e t i t i o n e r s d i d n o tap p e a l th i s Ma y 8 , 2 0 0 3 ru l i n g t o th e B I A. O n Jun e 6, 20 03 , the pet i t i on er s f i l ed a m ot i on t o rec on si der the IJ ’ s deni al of the i rm ot i on t o r e ope n. I n thi s m ot i on, the pe t i t i one r s a l l e ge d tha tthe y ha d not6

r e c e iv e d th e O c to b e r1 0 n o tic e s b e c au s e th e y w e r e s e n t to th e w r o n g a d d r e s s e s . T he pet i t i on er s a l so st at ed thei r bel i ef thatG om ez -C ruz had m i st akenl y provi ded the i nc orr e c tz i p c ode ( 33023) w he n s he f i l l e d outhe ri m m i gr a t i on f orm s upon e n try to th e U n ite d S ta te s . O n Jul y 23, 20 03 , the IJdeni ed pet i t i on er s’ m ot i on t o rec on si der the deni al of the i rm ot i on t o r e ope n. T he I J s t a t e d tha t“ the a s s e r t i ons i n the m ot i on a r e not cr edi bl e. ” I n add i t i on , the IJno t ed thati f the pet i t i on er s provi ded an i ncorrec t a ddr e s s , the n the pe t i t i one r s “ ha ve notc om pl i e d w i th the a ddr e s s r e por t i ng re qu i re m ent s. ” T he IJal so st at ed that“ [t ] he courtse ntno t i ce t o the address that [ the pe t i t i one r s ] us e d on [ the i r ] a s y l um appl i c a t i on [ w hi c h w a s s i gne d by pet i t i on er s] . ” T hu s, the IJconcl ud ed thatthe pet i t i on er s “ fa i l ed t o m ee tthe bu rden r e q u ir e d to r e o p e n p r o c e e d in g s .” C . A p p ea lto th e B IA O n A u g u s t 2 1 , 2 0 0 3 , C ru z - P e r e ir aa n d G o m e z - C ru z ap p e a le d to th e B I A . T he i rN ot i c e of

A ppe a l i ndi c a t e d tha tthe y w e r e appe a l i ng f r om the I J ’ s J ul y 23, 20 03 deci si on denyi ng thei r Jun e 6, 20 03 m ot i on t o rec on si der. In thei r bri ef , they arg u ed th atb ecau se G o m ez-C ru z’ s n o t i ce w as sen tt o th e i n co rrectM i am i ad d ress i nst ea d o f t o the corre ctaddres s i n M i ra m ar , the pet i t i on er s di d n otre ce i ve prop erBe causethe B IA af firmed without opinion the decision of the IJ , we review theIJ ’s 3 decision as the f

inal ag ency

deter mination. L onyem v. United States Att’y Gen., 352 F .3d 1338, 1340 (11th Cir. 2003). 7 not i c e of the i rhe a r i ng a nd thus the pr oc e e di ngs s houl d ha ve be e n r e ope ne d. T he B I A a f f irm e d “w ith o u t o p in io n th e r e s u lts o f th e d e c is io n b e lo w .” 3 I I . DI S CUS S I ON W e f i r s te xpl a i n w hy w e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de rthe I J ’ s M a y 8, 2003 o r d e rd e n y in g p e titio n e r s ’ m o tio n to r e o p e n , a n d h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to c o n s id e ro n ly the IJ ’ s Jul y 23, 20 03 order denyi ng the pet i t i on er s’ m ot i on t o rec on si der that d e n ia l. A . Ju r i s d i c t i on B e c aus e pe t i t i one r s m us te xha us tthe i ra dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s be f or e f i l i ng a p et i t i o n fo r rev i ew , w e m ay rev i ew an IJ’ s d eci si o n o n l y i f p et i t i o n ers fi rst appeal ed thatdeci si on t o the B IA . S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(d) (s t at i ng thata “ court m a y r e v ie w af

in a l o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l o n ly if

( 1 ) th e a lie n h a s e x h au s te d a ll a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s a va i l abl e t o the a l i e n a s of r i ght. . . ” ) ; D e L aT e

j av. U n it ed S tates, 3 2 1 F .3 d 1 3 5 7 , 1 3 6 6 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) ( co n clu d in g th at a p etit io n er ’s f a i l ur e t o appe a l a n I J ’ s de c i s i on t o the B I A pr e ve nt s thi s C our tf r om r e vi e w i ng the I J ’s d e c is io n ) . I n th is c a s e , p e titio n e r s f ile d th e irap p e a l w ith th e B I A o n A u g u s t 2 1 , 2 0 0 3 . T h e irA u g u s t 2 1 , 2 0 0 3 N o tic e o f A p p e a l m a d e c le a rth a t th e y w e r e ap p e a lin g o n lyWe reviewan IJ ’s rulingon a motion for re consideration only for a n abuse of

discretion. 4 Assa’ad v. United States Att’y Gen., 332 F .3d 1321, 1341 (11th Cir. 2003). Motions to reopen and motions to reconsider areg enerally

disfavore d. See I

NS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323, 112 S . C t . 7 1 9 , 7 2 4 ( 1 9 9 2 ) . Inaddi ti o n , wh ereanal i enh a s b e eno rd ere d re m o v e d i na b s enti a , anIJ may grant a motion to reconsider only if the alien demonstrates (1) that the “f ailure to a ppear was be causeof exceptional circumstance”or (2) that the alien did not re ceiveproper notice. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.23(b)(4)(ii); seealso L onyem, 352 F.3d a t 1340. 8 fro m th e IJ’ s Ju l y 2 3 , 2 0 0 3 d eci si o n d en yi n g th ei r m o t i o n t o reco n si d er. B ecau se pet i t i on er s f

ai l ed t o app ea l t o the B IA the IJ ’ s M ay8, 20 03 order, w e l ac k j u ri sd i ct i o n t o rev i ew th ato rd er as p et i t i o n ers fai l ed t o ex h au stth ei r rem ed i es. E v e n if th e p e titio n e r s ’ A u g u s t 2 1 , 2 0 0 3 N o tic e o f A p p e a l h a d a tte m p te d to ap p e a l th e I J ’s e a r lie rM a y 8 , 2 0 0 3 d e c is io n d e n y in g th e iro r ig in a l m o tio n to re op en, the re l evantre gu l at i on s w ou l d h ave barr ed thatappeal as un t i m el y. S ee 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .3 8 ( b ) ( “T h e N o tic e o f A p p e a l to th e [ B I A ] s h a ll b e f ile d . . . w ith in 30 ca l endar days af

t er. . . the m ai l i ng of an [I J’ s] w ri tt en deci si on . ”) . If pet i t i on er s ha d w a nt e d t o appe a l the I J ’ s M a y 8, 2003 de c i s i on de ny i ng the i ror i gi na l m ot i on to r e o p e n , th e y w o u ld h a v e h a d to d o s o b y M o n d a y , J u n e 9 , 2 0 0 3 , w h ic h th e y d id not . A c c or di ngl y , w e pr oc e e d t o r e vi e w onl y the I J ’ s J ul y 23, 2003 or de rde ny i ng th e m o tio n to r e c o n s id e r . B . IJ’s D en i al of M oti on to R ec on si d er W i th r e s pe c tt o the de ni a l of the i rm ot i on t o r e c ons i de r , P e t i t i one r s a r gue thatthe IJabused i t s di sc re t i on i n d et erm i ni ng thatthe no t i ce s s entt o them w er e s uf f i c i e nt . W e di s a gr e e . A s t o C ruz - P e r e i r a , the I m m i gr a t i on C our t ’ s r e c or ds

4Where a n alien fails to abide by

the address-reportingrequirements, the immigration 5 statutes provide that “no written notice shall be require d.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b) (5)(B) . 9 s how tha tthe O c t obe r10, 2002 not i c e c ha ngi ng the he a r i ng da t e t o F e brua ry 21, 2003, w a s m a i l e d t o C ruz - P e r e i r a ’ s c orr e c ta ddr e s s . S i m pl y put , thi s i s s uf f i c i e nt n o tic e . S e e D o m in g u e z v . U n ite d S ta te s A tt’y G e n ., 2 8 4 F .3 d 1 2 5 8 , 1 2 6 0 ( 1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 2 ) (ci t i n g 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 9 (c)) (st at i n g th atw ri tt en n o t i ce m ai l ed t o l ast addres s provi ded b y a l i en sa t i sf i es st atut ory r equi re m ent s a nd du e proces s, and that “th e r e c a n b e a n in ab s e n tiar e m o v a l a f te rs u c h n o tic e ” ) . T h u s , th e I J c le a r ly d id no tabuse i t s di sc re t i on as t o C ruz- P er ei ra . A s t o G o m ez-C ru z, w h i l e th e i ssu e i s so m ew h atd i fferen t , h er arg u m en tal so fa i l s. G om ez -C ruz w as un der a n o bl i gat i on t o p rovi de an address “ atw hi ch [s he] m aybe cont ac t ed. ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 9(a) (1)( F ); se e a l so D om i ng uez, 28 4 F . 3d at 1 2 6 0 ( n o tin g th a t “a n a lie n h a s a n a f f irm a tiv e d u ty to p r o v id e th e g o v e rn m e n t w ith ac o rr e c ta d d r e s s ” ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . Go m e z - C ru z f a i l e d th i s o b l i g a t i o n i n two as pect s. F i rs t , the address she gave cont ai ned the w rong zi p cod e ( 33 02 3 i nst ea d

5 of 33 02 5). S ec on d, and m ore i m po rt ant l y, an al i en w ho re ce i ves ano t i ce t o app ea r w i th a n i nc orr e c ta ddr e s s m us tnot i f y the c our tof

tha ti nc orr e c ta ddr e s s w i thi n f i ve da y s , a nd pr ovi de “ w r i tt e n not i c e of a n a ddr e s s a nd t e l e phone num be ra tw hi c h the a l i e n c a n be c ont a c t e d. ” 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 15( d) ( 1) . I n thi s c a s e , G om e z - C ruz c o n c e d e s th a t s h e r e c e iv e d th e S e p te m b e r5 , 2 0 0 2 n o tic e s e ttin g h e rh e a r in g d a teThe g overnment argues that the petitioners waived a ny arguments with respec t to the 6 IJ ’s July 23, 2003 denial of themotion to reconsider be causethe petitioners did not argue that specificrulingin their initial brief in this Court. W e disagree . The substanc e of all of the relevant leg al issues relating to the motion to rec onsider wa s fully briefe d, and wewill consider it. 10 f o rM a y 9 , 2 0 0 3 . T h a t n o tic e e x p r e s s ly e x p la in e d G o m e z - C ru z ’s o b lig a tio n to i nform the Im m i grat i on C ou rti f the S ept em ber 5 no t i ce cont ai ned an i ncorrec t addres s. Iti s und i sput ed thatG om ez -C ruz di d n otcont ac tthe Im m i grat i on C ou rt re gardi ng the i ncorrec taddres s. S ub se qu entm ai l i ng s, i ncl ud i ng the cruci al O c to b e r1 0 , 2 0 0 2 n o tic e r e - s e ttin g th e h e a r in g f o rF e b ru a ry 2 1 , 2 0 0 3 , c o n tin u e d to be se ntt o the sa m e a dd re ss show n o n the S ept em ber 5 no t i ce . In l i gh tof G om ez C ruz ’ s a dm i tt e d r e c e i ptof the S e pt e m be r5 not i c e a nd he rf a i l ur e t o a dvi s e the i m m i grat i on autho ri t i es thatthe S ept em ber 5 no t i ce w as se ntt o an i ncorrec t addres s, w e c anno tsa y thather due process ri gh t s w er e vi ol at ed or thatthe IJ ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n w h e n it c o n c lu d e d th a t th e O c to b e r1 0 n o tic e w a s s u f f ic ie n t. T hu s, m i nd ful of the greatdefe re nce w e a ff ord the B IA and IJ w hen r e vi e w i ng m ot i ons t o r e ope n a nd m ot i ons t o r e c ons i de r , w e f i nd no r e ve r s i bl e e rr or w i th r e s pe c tt o G om e z - C ruz ’ s pe t i t i on. 6 I I I . CONCL US I ON A c c or di ngl y , t o the e xt e ntthe pe t i t i one r s s e e k r e vi e w of the I J ’ s M a y 8, 2003 or de r , w e di s m i s s the pe t i t i on f orl a c k of

j ur i s di c t i on. T o the e xt e ntthe pe t i t i one r s s e e k r e vi e w of the I J ’ s J ul y 23, 2003 or de r , w e de ny the pe t i t i on.11

DI S MI S S E D, i n p a r t , a n d DE NI E D.