Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. I N TH E UN I TED STATES COU RT OF APPEA LS F O R T H E F IF T H C IR C U IT

N o. 07- 60920 Su m m ar y Cal endar

BE RN AR D O ALF O N SO M EN D EZ- SAN TA CR U Z , P et i t i on er

v. ERI C H

. H OLD ER, J R. , U. S. ATTORN EY GE N ERA L , Res po nde nt

Pet i t i o n f

o rRev i e w o f

a n Ord e ro f

t he B o a r do f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls B IAN o. A 27 601 052

B e fo r e D e M O S S , P R A D O , a n dH AY N E S , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * Ber nar do Al f

o ns o M e nde z - Sant ac r uz (M e nde z ) , a nat ive and c i t i z en of C o lo m b ia , p e tit io n s fo rre v ie w o f a n o r d e ro f th e B o a r d o f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ( B IA) af

f i rm i n g t h e i m m i grati on ju d g e ’ s ( IJ) den i alof hi s m ot i on t o reopen
r em ovalpr oc ee di ngs af t erh e w as orde r ed depor t ed i n abs ent i a. H e arg ues t hat th e B IAs h o u ldh a v e fo u n dre a s o n a b le ca u s e fo rh i s fa ilu r e to a p p e a ra t h is i n i ti a lh ea ri n ga n dalso a sse rts tha t th e B IAerre di n fa i l i n g to ex ercise i ts di scr et i on t o reopen the proceedi n gs t o consi der adj u st m en tof st atus. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Janua ry 11, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 07-60920 Document: 00511000732 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/11/2010N o. 07- 60920

2 W e re v ie w th e B IA ’ s d e n ia l o f am o tio n t o r e o p e n u n d e rth e “h ig h ly d e fe r e n t ia l a b u s e o f d is c r e t io n s t a n d a r d ,” r e g a r d le s s o f t h e b a s is o f t h e a li e n ’s
r e q u e s t fo rre lie f. G om ez- Palaci os v. Hol d er , 5 6 0 F .3d3 5 4 , 3 5 8 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). A ccordi n gl y, w e m u staf f i rm t h e B IA ’ s deci si on as l on g as i ti s not capri ci ou s, “u tt e r lyw ith o u t fo u n d a tio n in th e e v id e n c e , o ro th e r w is e s o irr a tio n a l th a t itis
a rb i traryra th er th a n th e resu l t of a n y p erce p tib l e ra ti on a lap p roa ch

. ” Si ngh v. G on zales , 4 36 F. 3d 484 , 4 87 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 6) (i nt e r nalc i t at i o n a nd q uo t at i o ns o m itt e d). T h e governing st atute i n pl ace at t h e t i m e of M en dez’ s 1987 dep ort ati on h e a r in ga llo w e dina b s e n tia h e a r i n g s if th e a lie n w a s g iv e n are a s o n a b le
o ppo r t uni t y t o b e pr e s e nt but fail e d o r r e f us e d t o at t e nd t he pr o c e e di ngs w i t ho ut
r e a s o n a b le ca u s e . I.N .A . § 2 4 2 (b ), 8 U .S .C

. § 1 2 5 2 (b ) (1 9 8 2 ) (r e p e a le d1 9 9 0 ); see als o Wi l l i am s- Igw on obe v. G on zales , 4 3 7 F .3d4 5 3 , 4 5 5 & n .1 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). U ndert he f

or m er § 1252(b) , an al i en deni ed r eli ef i n an i n abs ent i a hear i ng m ay s till m o v e fo r r e o p e n in g , b u t is re q u ir e dto d e m o n s tr a te re a s o n a b le ca u s e fo rh is fa ilu r e t o a p p e a ra t t h e o r ig in a l h e a r in g . Wi l l i am s - I gw onobe , 437 F. 3d at455- 56 & n. 1 (citingMa tter of Ha im , 19 I. & N
. D ec. 641 , 6 4 2 (B IA198 8) )

. M en dez
as se r t s t hathe esta bl i she d r eas onabl e c ause f orhi s abs enc e f

r om hi s or i gi nal dep ort ati on hea ri n g by d em on st rat i n g t h at he w as not given proper noti ce. P ro p e rlyn o tifyin ga n a li e n ’ s c o u n se l o f t h e t im e , d a te , a n dloca tion of a h e a r in gc a n c o n s tit u te a d e q u a te a n de ffe c tiv e n o tic e t o th e a lie n . S ee 8 C. F. R. § 2 9 2 .5 (a ); seealso Me n K e ng Chang v . Ji ungi , 6 6 9 F .2d 2 7 5 , 2 7 7 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 2 ); Ma tter of B a ro cio , 19 I. & N
. D ec. 255 , 259 ( B IA198 5)

. M en dez h as w h ol l y fai l ed to s h o w t h a t L io n e l P e r e z d idn o t s e rv e a s h is co u n s e l o f r e c o r do rth a t P e r e z d id
no tr e c e ivet he no t i c e s e nt
. Bey o nd the bar e al l e ga t i o ns t hathe di d no ta t t e nd t he he ar i ng be c aus e he di d notre c e iveno t i f i c at i o n f

r o m Pe r e z , he ha s m ad e no a tte m p t to co m p ly w ith th e re q u ire m e n ts o f In re L oz a d a , 1 9 I. & N
. D ec . 637 (B IA 1 9 8 8 ), o ro th e r w is e d e m o n s tr a te in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. S ee In
r eN- K- & V- S- , 2 1 I
. & N
. D e c . 8 79 , 8 80

- 81 ( BI A 199 7) (i f a n a ppli c antm e e t s t he Case: 07-60920 Document: 00511000732 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/11/2010N o. 07- 60920

3 r e quir e m e nt s s e tf

o r t h i n Lozada , a c l ai m of i nef fec t ive as si st anceof

c ounse lc an f o r m t he b as i s o f

as uc c e s s f

ulm o t i o n t o r e o pe n)

. The g e ne r ala ppli c at i o n o f t he Lozadar e q u ir e m e n ts is n o t a n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . La r a v. Trom i nski , 216 F. 3d 487, 49 8 (5th C i r . 2000)

. The B IAdi d notabus e it s di sc r et i on i n hol di ng t hat M endez had nots how n re as onabl e c ause f orhi s abs en ce f

r om hi s i ni t i al i m m i gr at i on hear i ng. M en dez al so asser t s t h at hi s m ot i onw as t i m el y becau se a m ot i o n t or e o pen b a s e du p o n la c ko f p r o p e rn o tic e ca n b e fi l e d a t a n ytim e . S ee I NA § 2 4 0 a )(5 )(C )(ii) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 (a )(5 )(C )(ii). H e is co r r e c t to t h e e x te n t t h a t h is
m ot i on t o reopen sou gh t t o resc i n d h i s i n absen t i a dep ort ati on order; how ever, t o t he e xt e ntt hatM e nde z s o ugh tt o r e o pe n i n or de rt o apply f o rne w r e l i e f, t he
m o tio n w a s n o t t im e lyfile d

. I n r eM

- S- , 2 2 I
. &N

. De c . 3 4 9 ( BIA 1 9 9 8 ) ; 8 C. F. R. § § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )(2 ), 1 0 0 3 .2 3 (b ); seealso In reC ru z-G a rc ia , 22 I
. & N
. D ec . 1155, 1160 ( B IA199 9) (concl u di n g t h at r espon den t ’ s m ot i on t o reopen to c on si der adj ust m entof

s t at us w as unt i m ely b eca use t he m ot i on had notbe en f i l ed by Se pt e m be r3 0, 1 99 6)

. Ther e f o r e , t he BI A d i d no t ab us e i t s di s c r e t i o n i n de nyi ng t h e m ot i on t o reopen t o t h e ext en tt h at M en dez soug h tan adj u st m en tof st atus. Ac c o r d i n g l y , t h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w i s DE NI ED
. Case: 07-60920 Document: 00511000732 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/11/2010