2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-19-2006 

# P e re z -Alevant e v

. Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-4230

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" P e r ez -Alevant e v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 442. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/4421 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

__________ N o. 05- 4230

__________ HU GO EDU AR DO PEREZ- ALEV AN TE,

P eti ti o n er, vs. A LB ER TO G O N ZA LES, A t t orneyG eneral of the U nit ed S t at es,

R e sp o n d e n t.

__________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls U . S. D epart m entof J us t i ce, E xecut i ve O ffi ce f orI m m i gr at i on R evi ew ( B I A N o. A 36- 821- 800) I.J. H e n ryS . D o g in

__________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

Sept ember15, 2006

___________ B efor e: SL O V I T E R , W E I S and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: Sept ember19, 2006)

__________ OP I NI ON

__________2

G ar t h, C i r cui tJ udge: H ugo E duar do Per ez- A l evant e pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a f i nal or derent ere d b yt he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) on A ugus t 16, 2005, aff i r m ing an i m m i gr at i on jud g e’s d en ial o f h is m o ti o n to reo p en h is r em o v al pro ce ed ing s . A d m inistrati v e R ec o rd ( “A . R . ”) 2. Fort he r eas ons s t at ed bel ow , w e w i l l gr antthe pet i t i on. I Per ez- A l evant e w as bor n i n t he D om inic an R epubl i c and a dm i t t ed i nt o t he U ni t ed St at es as a p e r ma n e n tr e s i d e n ti n 1 9 7 9 a tt h e a g e o f n i n e . A. R. 7 7 , ¶ ¶ 1 - 2 . On M a r c h 29, 1996, he pl ed gui l t yi n N ew J er s eySuper i orC our tt o one countof pos s es s i on of a c ontr ol l ed d a n g e ro u s s u b sta n c e (c o c a in e ) w ith in ten t to d istrib u te w ith in 1 0 0 0 f e e t o f a s c h o o l, i n v io la tio n o f

N .J . S ta t. A n n . § 2 C :3 5 -7 . I d. at 95 -97 . H e w as se n tenc ed to fiv e y ea rs c o n f in e m e n t. I

d. at95. H e s ucce s s ful l ycompl et ed the “I nt ens i ve Supervi s i on Pr ogr am, ” and
w a s re le a s e d f

ro m in c a rc e ra tio n in M a rc h 1 9 9 7 . I d. at77, ¶ 4; 80. A s a re su lt o f

th is c o n v ictio n , o n D e c e m b e r 3, 19 9 7 , th e IN S se rv e d P e re z -A lev a n te
w i t h a not i ce t o appea r , char gi ng hi m w i t h b eing rem o v abl e pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . §§ 1 2 2 7 (a )( 2 ) ( A )( iii) (c o n v ic tio n o f a n a g g ra v a te d f

e lo n ya s d e f

in e d in 8 U .S .C . § 1101( a) ( 43) ( B ) ( i l l i ci ttr aff i cki ng i n a c o n tr o ll ed su b stan ce )) an d 1 2 2 7 (a)(2)(B )(i ) ( convi ct i on of a c ont r ol l ed subs t ance vi ol at i on) . A . R . 104- 06. T he fi r s tpage of the not i ce s how s thatt he
s t r eetaddr es s forPer ez- A l evant e, 508 C entr al A venue i n H arr i s on, N ew J er s ey , w as cr os s ed
o u t a n d c h a n g e d to 3 0 7 W illia m S tr e e t. I d. at104. T he fi nal page a dvi s ed Per ez- A l evant e that3

he w as i m m edi at el yr equi r ed t o pr ovi de the I N S i n w r i t i ng w i t h hi s m ai l i ng addr es s and that i tw as hi s r espo n sib il i t yt o n oti fyt he im m i grat i on cou rti m m ediat el yanyt i m e t hat address
c h a n g e d . I

d. at 106. I t fur t hercaut i oned hi m t hati f he di d not“pr ovi de an a ddr es s atw hi ch [he] m aybe r eac hed dur i ng pr ocee di ngs , ” he w oul d notbe ent i t l ed t o not i ce of hi s r emoval h e a ri n g a n d a re m o v a l o rd e r c o u ld b e e n te re d a t th a t h e a ri n g in h is a b s e n c e . I d. Per ez- A l evant e ac know l edged r ece i vi ng t hi s not i ce bys i gni ng i ton D ece m ber3, 1 9 9 7 . I d. H e r et ai ned couns el t o r epr es enthi m i n m att er s r el at i ng t o hi s pos s i bl e deport at i on, a n d o n D e c e m b e r 8 , 1 9 9 7 , h is c o u n se l en ter e d a n a p p e a ra n c e a n d f iled a F o rm E O IR -2 8 w ith th e im m ig ra tio n c o u rt in N e w a rk , N e w J e rs e y . I d. at83. O n A pr i l 16, 2004, t he D i s t r i ct C ouns el forI m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cement ( “I C E ”) i n N ew ark m ai l ed Per ez- A l evant e a l ett er s t at i ng t hat hi s not i ce t o appea rw as bei ng f ile d w ith th e im m ig ra tio n c o u rt in N e w a rk . I d. at 99. T he l ett er w as m ai l ed t o 307 W i l l i am S tr ee t. I d. Th e a d mi n i s t r a t i v e r e c o r d d o e s n o tr e v e a l i f th i s l e t t e rwa s e v e rr e tu r n e d t o I CE by t he U ni t ed St at es Post O ffi ce, nor does i t r evea l w hether t he D i s t r i ct C ouns el everm ai l ed
a c o p y o f t h i s l e t t e rt o P e r e z - A l e v a n t e ’ s a t t o r n e y. O n A pr i l 19, 2004, t he i m m i gr at i on cour tm ai l ed Per ez- A l evant e a not i ce of hear i ng, agai n us i ng t he 307 W i l l i am S t r eet ad d ress. T he not i ce of hear i ng s t at ed thatPer ezA l evant e’ s cas e had be en s chedul ed fora hea r i ng on M ay18, 2004 at9: 00 a. . m . , and gave th e lo c a tio n in N e w a rk . I d. at94. A s w as t he ca s e w i t h the A pr i l 16 l ett er , t he admi ni s t r at i ve th
recor d d oes no t dis cl ose w hether t he no t i ce w as r eturned to the im m i grat i on cou rtbyt he P ost4

O f f i c e , o rw h e t h e ra n o t i c e o f h e a r i n g w a s s e n tt o P e r e z - A l e v a n t e ’ s a t t o r n e y. Per ez- A l evant e fa i l ed t o appea r at t he hear i ng and w as or der ed deport ed in a b se n tia . I d. at93. O n O ct ober20, 2004, Per ez- A l evant e fi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen w i t h the i m m i gr at i on j udg e, a sserti ng t hat( i ) nei t herhe norhi s at t orneyr ece i ved not i ce of the r emoval hear i ng; (i i) h e w a s e lig ib le to a p p ly f o r a d i s c r e t i o n a ry w a iv e r o f d e p o rt a tio n u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1182( c) pur s uantt o I

. N. S
. v . St
. C

yr , 5 3 3 U . S. 289 ( 2001) ; and ( i i i ) hi s cas e s houl d be
re o p e n e d to p e rm it h im th e o p p o rt u n ity to a p p ly f o r s u c h a w a iv e r. I

d. at73- 75. I n an aff i davi t s ubm i t t ed i n s uppor t of hi s m ot i on, Per ez- A l evant e att es t ed t hathi s addr es s w as 226 B el gr ove D r i ve i n K earny , N ew J er s ey , and t hat he had l i ved att hataddr es s s i nce Sept ember 2 0 0 0 . I d. at77, ¶ 1. H e neve ras s er t s t hat he not i fi ed ei t her t he i m m i gr at i on cour torI C E t hat h e h ad ch an g ed h is ad d ress f rom the a d d ress stated o n the n o ti ce to ap p ea r. T h e im m ig ra tio n ju d g e d e n ie d P e re z -A le v a n te ’s m o tio n to re o p e n . I d. at61- 63. T he j udge found t hat t he not i ce of hear i ng w as pr oper l y m ai l ed t o t he mostr ece ntaddr es s Per ezA l evant e pr ovi ded; t hathe had be en per s onal l ys erved w it h the n o ti ce t o appea rand thus
a c tu a llyin f

o rm e d b o th o f h is re sp o n sib ili tyto k e e p th e im m ig ra tio n c o u rt a p p rise d o f h is
curr entaddr es s and the cons equenc es of any fai l ur e t o do s o; and thus , thatthe in a b se n tia
re m o v a l o rd e r w a s p ro p e rl ye n te re d . I d. P e re z -A lev a n te a p p e a led th e im m ig ra tio n ju d g e ’s d e n ial o f h is m o tio n to re o p e n to th e B IA . I

d. at5- 19, 32- 36. H e aga i n r ai s ed the i s s ue thatnei t herhe nor h is a t t orneyhad5

re c e iv e d n o tic e o f th e M a y 1 8 , 2 0 0 4 h e a ri n g . I d. at 13- 14. I n addi t i on, he agai n as s ert ed that h e w a s e lig ib le f

o r a d is c re tio n a ry w a iv e r o f d e p o rt a tio n . I

d. at15- 19. T he B I A deni ed Per ez- A l evant e’ s appea l . A ft eradopt i ng and af fi r m i ng t he dec i s i on of the i m m i gr at i on j udge, t he B I A found that( i ) Perez - A l evant e w as deemed t o have
r ece i ved not i ce of

hi s hear i ng dat e bec aus e n o ti ce w as s entt o t he mostr ece ntaddr es s he pr ovi ded and he w as aw ar e of hi s obl i gat i on t o keep thataddr es s curr ent ; ( i i ) t her e w er e no exce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s excus i ng hi s fai l ur e t o ap p ea r; and ( i i i ) t he ava i l abi l i t yof new
r e l i e f i n t h e f

o r m o f a d i s c r e t i o n a r y wai v e r o f d e p o r t a t i o n d i d n o t o b v i a t e t h e f a c t t h a the fai l ed t o appea ratt he M ayhear i ng and w as or der ed deport ed in a b se n tia . I d. at2- 3. T hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew fol l ow ed.
II T he governm ent arg u es t hatthi s C our tl acks j ur i s di ct i on overthi s m att er . Sect i on 1 2 5 2 (a )(1 ) o f

T itl e 8 , as a m e n d e d b yT h e R E A L ID A c t o f 2 0 0 5 (“ R E A L ID A c t”) , g iv e s th is C o u rt ju risd ictio n to re v iew f in a l o rd e rs o f

re m o v a l. “Im p licit in th is ju risd ictio n a l g ra n t is t he author i t yt o r evi ew or der s d eny i ng m ot i ons t o r eopen a nys uch fi nal or der . ” P at el v. U ni t ed Stat es A t t ’

y G en. , 3 3 4 F . 3 d 1 2 5 9 , 1 2 6 1 (11 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). H o w ev er, in c a se s in v o lv in g c rim in a l alie n s, th e R E A L I D A c t re stric ts th e C o u rt’s ju risd ictio n to co n sti tuti o n al claim s an d q u esti o n s o f law . 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(C ), (a)(2)(D ). Per ez- A l evant e does notcont es tthathe i s a cr i m i nal al i en. W hi l e t hi s cl as s i fi cat i on al r eady l i m i t s t he pot ent i al s cope of our r evi ew , t he governm entr el i es on P apageor gi ou v.6

G onz al es , 413 F. 3d 356 ( 3d C i r . 2005) , for t he fur t her pr opos i t i on t hat i n ca ses in vol vi ng cr i m i n al al i ens , ourj ur i s di ct i on ext ends onl yt o “l egi t i m at e” c ons t i tut i onal cl ai m s and ques t i ons of l aw . ( R es p’ tB r . 15- 16. ) T he governm entm i s r eads t he hol di ng i n P apageor gi ou . I n t hatcas e, w e es t abl i s hed thatt he R E A L I D A ctr es t or ed ourj ur i s di ct i on over cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s and quest i ons of l aw pr es ent ed i n a cr i m i nal al i en’ s pet i t i on forr evi ew o f h is or h er f

inal rem o v al ord er. P a

pageor gi ou , 413 F. 3d at358. A ft erexpl ai ni ng our j ur i s di ct i on, w e found the part ic ul arcons t i tut i onal cl ai m Papageor gi ou as s ert ed t o be
m e ri tle s s a n d d e n ie d th e p e titio n . I d. a t3 5 9 . I n o t h e rwor d s , a s s e r t i o n o f a c o n s t i tu t i o nal cl ai m orques t i on of l aw gi ves t he C our t t he aut hor i t y t o r es ol ve t hat cl ai m on t he mer i t s ; t he C ou rtrem ai ns free, as al w ay s, t o d enym eri t l ess cl ai m s. III Per ez- A l evant e cont ends t hath i s l aw y erw as notpr ovi ded w i t h a not i ce of hear i ng and t hatt hi s om i s s i on cons t i tut es an err orof l aw r equi r i ng r ever s al of the deni al of the mot i on t o r eopen. T he governm ent conce des bot h t hat t her e i s no i ndi cat i on i n t h e A d m ini s t r at i ve R ecor d t hatPer ez- A l evant e’ s at t or neyw as ever s ent a copyof the not i ce of hear i ng and that the q u esti o n o f w h ethe r i t w as e rror n o t t o p rov ide s u ch n o ti ce , is a q u esti o n o f l aw . (R esp ’t B r. 7 , 2 2 .) We h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w th i s q u e s t i o n o f l a w . 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) . We revi ew t he “B IA ’s l egal deci si on s de novo , butw i l l aff or d C hevr on d ef

ere n ce to the B IA ’s
r eas onabl e i nt erpr et at i ons of s t atut es w hi ch i t is c har ged w i t h admi ni s t er i ng. ” Fr ancois v.7

G onz al es , 4 4 8 F . 3 d 6 4 5 , 6 4 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (qu o tat ion an d cit ati o n o m itted). T he st atut e w hi ch gover ns t he gi vi ng of a not i ce t o appea rata r emoval hear i ng s t at es t hatt he not i ce must “be gi ven i n per s on t o t he al i en ( or , i f per s onal s ervi ce i s notpr act i cabl e, th ro u g h s e rv ic e b ym a il to th e a lie n o r t o th e a lie n ’s c o u n s e l o f re c o rd , if

a n y ).” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 ( a ) ( 1 ) . S e c t i o n 1 2 2 9 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( F ) o f T i t l e 8 r e q u i r e s th a tth i s n o t i c e s p e c i f y: ( i ) T he r equi r ement t hat t he al i en m us t i m m edi at el ypr ovi de ( orhave pr ovi ded) t he A t t or ney G ener al w i t h a w r i t t en re cor d of an addr es s and t el ephone number ( i f any ) atw hi ch the a li en m aybe cont act ed r es pect i ng pr ocee di ngs under s ect i on 1229a of thi s t i t l e. ( i i ) T he r equi r ementt hatthe al i en must pr ovi de the A t t orneyG ener al i m m edi at el yw i t h a w r i t t en r ecor d of anychange of the al i en’ s addr es s or tel ep h o n e n u m b er. (iii) T he conseq uen ces un der sect i on 12 29 a(b) (5) of this t i t l e of fai l ure to pr ovi de addr es s and t el ephone i nform at i on pur s uantt o t hi s s ubpar agr aph. 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 9 (a)(1)(F ). T ur ni ng t o t he r efe r ence d s t atut e, then, s ubpar agr aph (A ) of s ect i on 1229a( b) ( 5) decl ares t hati f a not i ce t o appea r“has been pr ovi ded t o the al i en orthe al i en’ s couns el of
r ecor d, ” butt he al i en fa i l s t o appea ratthe r emoval pr ocee di ng, he: sh all b e o rde red rem o v ed in a b s e n tia if th e S erv ice e stab li sh es b yclea r, unequi vocal , and convi nci ng evi dence thatthe w r i t t en not i ce w as s o pr ovi ded and that t he al i en i s r emovabl e . . . . T he w r i t t en not i ce by the A t t orneyG ener al s hal l be cons i der ed s uffi ci entforpurpos es of thi s par agr aph i f pr ovi ded atthe m os tr ece ntaddr es s pr ovi ded unders ect i on 1229( a) ( 1) ( F) of thi s t i t l e. 8 U . S. C . § 1229a( b) ( 5) ( A ) . Fur t herm or e, s ubpar agr aph ( B ) caut i ons t hat “[n] o w r i t t en not i ce sha ll b e re q u ir ed u nd er s ub paragraph (A ) i f t he ali en h as fai l ed to provide the ad dress req u ir ed u n d er se cti o n 1 2 2 9 (a)(1)(F ) of this t it le. ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 9 a(b )(5)(B ).8

Fi nal l y , t he accompany i ng r egul at i ons m andat e t hat “[w ] heneve r a per s on i s r equi r ed b ya n yo f

th e p ro v is io n s o f th is c h a p te r to g iv e o r b e g iv e n n o tic e . . . su c h n o tice . . . sh a ll b e g ive n b

y o r to . . . the a tto rn e y o r r e p re se n ta tive o

f re c o rd , o r th e p e rs o n h im se lf i f
unr epr es ent ed. ” 8 C . F . R . § 2 9 2 . 5 ; 8 C . F . R . § 1 2 9 2 . 5 . (em p h asis ad d ed ). P e re z -A lev a n te r e lies o n th e se re g u latio n s to a rg u e th a t th e im m ig ra tio n c o u rt sh o u ld have s enta hea r i ng not i ce t o hi s at t or neyof r ecor d. I ndeed, t he r egul at i ons m ake c l earthat
w h e n e v e r a n a lien m u st b e g iv e n n o tice , h is c o u n se l o f r e c o r d , if a n y , is a lso e n tit led to
n o tic e . See 8 C . F. R . § 292. 5; 8 C . F. R . § 1292. 5. I n r es pons e, t he governm enti nvokes t he not i ce- el i m i nat i ng s ubpar agr aph, 8 U . S. C . § 1229a( b) ( 5) ( B ) , t o m ai nt ai n thatbeca us e Per ezA l evant e, aft erm ovi ng i n 2000, neverpr ovi ded n o ti ce o f h i s change of addr es s t o t he i m m i gr at i on cour tas he w as r equi r ed t o do, t he i m m i gr at i on cour t w as underno obl i gat i on t o pr ovi de anynot i ce of t he hea r i ng; i f ther e w as no obl i gat i on t o pr ovi d e n o ti ce t o Per ezA lev a n te, t h e r e w a s n o d e riv a tiv e o b lig a tio n u n d e r th e re g u latio n s to p ro v id e n o tice to h is
couns el . T he governm entfur t herr epr es ent s thati ns o fa r a s t her e r emai ned a not i ce re q u ire m e n t h e re , itw a s f u lf ill e d w h e n th e im m ig ra tio n c o u rt se n t th e n o tic e o f h e a rin g to th e m o s t r e c e n t a d d re s s P e re z -A le v a n te p ro v id e d . See 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 9 a(b )(5)(A ). A s a pr el i m i narym at t er , w e ar e notper s uaded bythe governm ent ’ s cont ent i on t hat 8 U . S. C . § 1229a( b) ( 5) ( B ) el i m i nat es ent i r el yt he governm ent ’ s s t atut oryobl i gat i on t o gi ve noti ce of a r emoval hear i ng t o an al i en w ho has pr ovi ded a mai l i ng addr es s , buthas not updat ed i t . T he more r eas onabl e i nt erpr et at i on of t hi s pr ovi s i on i s t hatata r emoval hear i ng9

w her e the al i en i s not i n at t endanc e and has pr ovi ded no c o n t a c ti n f o r ma t i o n u n d e r8 U. S . C. § 1229( a) ( 1) ( F) , t hen 8 U . S. C . § 1229a( b) ( 5) ( B ) abs ol ves the governm entof the bur den of
e s ta b lis h in g b y“ c le a r, u n e q u iv o c a l, a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e th a t th e w ri tte n n o tic e w a s . . . p ro v id e d .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a (b )(5 )(B ). I n d e e d , w h e re th e a lien h a s p ro v id e d n o a d d re ss , it i s doubt ful t hatnot i ce c oul d have been pr ovi ded. H ow ever , t he st atut e does not i ndi cat e an i n t e n tt o e l i mi n a t e t h e g i v i n g o f n o t i c e wh e r e th e g o v e r n me n ti s i n pos s e s s i o n o f s o me a d d re ss f o r th e a lien . F o r e x a m p le, 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a (b )(5 )(A ) d e c lar e s th a t w ritten n o tice is
su f f icie n t “if p ro v id e d a t th e m o st re c e n t ad d re ss p ro vid e d u n d e r se c tio n 1 2 2 9 (a )(1 )(F ) o f th is tit le.” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a (b )(5 )(A ). T o b e su re , th e f a c t th a t 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a (b )(5 )(A ), b yits
r efe r ence t o t he “ m os tr ece nt addr es s , ” part i cul ar i zes w hi ch addr es s i ti s i ndi cat i ng, w her eas 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a (b )( 5 )( B ) r e f e rs o n ly to “ t h e a d d r e s s ,” s u p p o rt s o u r v ie w th a t 8 U .S .C . § 12 29 a(b) (5) (B ) can on l ybe invok ed w here the ali en h as provi ded absolut el yno add res s. W e ar e s at i s fi ed thatPer ez- A l evant e’ s Fi fth A m en d m en t r i ghtt o due pr oces s w as v io la te d b yth e im m ig ra tio n c o u rt ’s f a ilu re to p r o v i d e n o t ic e to h is a tto rn e yo f re c o rd . A
r ece ntSupr eme C our tcas e dea l i ng i n a di ffe r entcont ex t butaddr es s i ng t he pr i nci pl e of
n o tic e , Jon es v. F l ow ers , 12 6 S. C t . 17 08 (2006 ), i nfo rm s our decis i on . A ft er J on es’ ho use w a s s o ld in a tax sa le, J o n e s b ro u g h t s u it , c laim in g h is rig h ts u n d e r th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t D u e P ro c e ss C lau se w e re v io late d b e c a u se h e h a d n o t re c e iv e d n o tice p rio r to th e s a le . I

d. at712- 13. T he A r kans as C om m i s s i oner of St at e L ands had s ent J ones not i ce by
cert i fi ed mai l i n acc or dance w i t h t he appl i cabl e s t atute, b u t w hen the pac ketw as r etur ned10

u n o p e n e d a n d m a rk e d “ u n c la im e d ,” th e C o m m is s io n e r t o o k n o f u rt h e r a c tio n . I

d. T he C our thel d t hat t he st at e’ s fai l ur e t o t ake addi t i onal r eas onabl e s t eps t o pr ovi de not i ce a ft erl earni ng t hatt he s t atut or i l y - pr es cr i bed not i ce met hod had fa il ed, vi ol at ed due p ro c e s s . I

d. at1713. A l t hough J ones had fa i l ed t o compl yw i t h a s t atut oryobl i gat i on t o keep hi s addr es s updat ed, t he C our tagr eed t hatt hi s fai l ur e di d notr es ul ti n for fei tur e of hi s r i ght t o be gi ven cons t i tut i onal l ys uffi ci ent n o ti ce b efor e the s t at e coul d s el l hi s pr oper t yfor d e lin q u e n t ta x e s . I

d. a t 1 7 1 7 . S im ilarly , the f a c t th a t P e re z -A lev a n te d id n o t co m p lyw ith h is
s t atut or yr es pons i bi l i t yt o pr ovi de a c urr entaddr es s di d n o t ne ces s ar i l ym ean thatt he i m m i gr at i on cour t w as ent i r el y r el i eved of i t s obl i gat i on t o pr ovi de hi m w i t h not i ce thatm et t he r equi r em en t s of the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e. T hi s i s s o, par t i cul ar l yw her e the r egul at i ons p ro v id e f o r n o tic e to a n a lie n ’s a tto rn e y a n d n o s u c h n o tic e w a s g iv e n . See 8 C . F. R . § 292. 5; 8 C . F. R . § 1292. 5. W e, j us tas t he Jones C o u rt , are g u ided b ythe p ri n ciple tha t “w h en n o ti ce is a p erso n ’s due . . . [t ] he means empl oy ed mustbe s uch as one d esirou s o f actual l yi nform i ng t he ab sen t ee mi ghtr eas onabl yadoptt o acc om pl i s h i t . ” I d. a t1 7 1 5 ( c i t a t i o n a n d q u ot at i on o m itte d ). I t is w e ll- s e ttle d th a t a lie n s f a c in g re m o v a l a re e n title d to d u e p ro c e s s . See e
. g. , A b d u la i v. A sh c ro

ft , 2 3 9 F . 3 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). W e b eli ev e tha t an im m igrati o n co u rt i nt enton actual l y i nform i ng an al i en of hi s r emoval hear i ng and i n pos s es s i on of the cont act i nform at i on fort he al i en’ s couns el , w oul d cert ai nl yt ake the r eas onabl e s t ep of m ai l i ng not i ce t o thatcou nsel . T his add i t i on al st ep requ i res de m i ni m us e f f o rt b yth e g o v e rn m e n t, an d is11

bal ance d agai ns t the si gni fi cant i nt er es t an al i en faci ng r emoval has i n bei ng abl e t o cont i nue h is p ro f e s s io n a l a n d f

a m ilia l lif

e in th is c o u n tr y . See Se w ak v. I
. N
. S. , 900 F. 2d 667, 671- 72 ( 3d C i r . 1990) ( “Though depor t at i on i s nott echni cal l ya cr i m i nal pr ocee di ng, i tvi s i t s a gr eat har ds hi p on t he i ndi vi dual and depr i ves hi m of the r i ghtt o s t ayand l i ve and w or k i n t hi s l and of fr eedom. M et i cul ous car e mustbe exe r ci s ed l es tthe pr ocedur e by w h ich h e i s depr i ved of t hat l i ber t y not m eet t he es s ent i al s t andar ds of fairnes s. ”). A l t hough Jones found a due pr oces s vi ol at i on i n t he fa ctt hatt he St at e t ook no addi t i onal s t eps to gi ve not i ce af t er becomi ng aw ar e thati t s i ni t i al at t empt had bee n uns ucce s s ful , the i m m i gr at i on cour ther e had th e c o n tac t in f

o rm a tio n f

o r P e re z -A lev a n te’ s c o u n se l f r om the out

s et . C ons i der i ng that“the
cons t i tut i onal i t yof a pa r t i cul arpr ocedur e fornot i ce i s as s es s ed ex a n te , ” Jones , 1 2 6 S . C t. at1717, w e have no di ffi cul t yi n fi ndi ng t hat t he addi t i onal s t ep of pr ovi di ng not i ce t o Per ezA l evant e’ s couns el , w her e t he i m m i gr at i on cour t knew he w as r epr es ent ed bycouns el and
w as in p o ss e ssi on of thatcou nsel ’s con t acti nfo rm at i on , w as r equ i red byt he D ue P rocess C l aus e. W e w i l l gr antt he pet i t i on on the gr ounds of i nadequa t e not ice. H en ce, w e do not
a d d r e s s P e r e z - A l e v a n t e ’ s a r g u m e n tc o n c e r n i n g a d i s c r e t i o n a r yw a i v e ro f d e p o r t a t i o n . We
w i l l r emand t o t he B I A w i t h di r ect i ons thati tr emand t o t he i m m i gr at i on j udge t o cons i der P erez- A l evan t e’s rem ai ning argum ents .