NO T F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0404n.06 No. 08-3894 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT JOSE MOTA-ROMA N,

P etitioner , ON AP P EA L F RO M THE v. BOA RD OF IM M IG RA TIO N ERIC H. HOL DER, JR., Attor ney Ge neral,

Respondent. ________________________________/ BEF OR E: M AR TIN , SU HR HEI NRIC H an d G IBBO NS, Ci r c uitJudg e s. P ER CURIAM . J ose Mota-Roman pe titions for r eview of a fina l order of

the B oard of I mmigration Appeals (“ BIA”) , aff irming the decision of a

n I mmigration J udg e (“ I J ”), w ho denied Mota-Roman’s mot ion to reope n remova l proce eding s to rescind a n in absentia or de r o f r e mov a l. Mota-Roman challeng es the adequa cy of notice provided of his r emoval proce eding s under both the I mmigration and Nationality Act (“ I NA”) and the Due Process Clause of the F ifth Amendment. F or the re asons that follow, we DENY the petition. I. Bac kgr ound Mota-Roman is a native a nd citizen of Mexi co. He enter ed the United States illega lly at an
un kn ow n d a te a nd

un kn ow n p la c e . On Se pte mbe r 12 , 2 00 5, the De pa rtme nt o f H ome land

Se c ur ity (“ DH S” ) p e rs on a lly

se rv e d M ota -R oma

n w itha wr itt e n N oti c e to A

pp e a r (“ NT A” ), c ha

rg inghim

a s re mov a

ble fo r be ingpr e se nt i n th e Un ite d St ate s w ith ou t be ingpr op e rl y a dmi tte d o r p a ro le d, in vio la tio n o f § 21 2( a )( 6) (A )( i) of the I NA8 U .S. C. § 1182
. Mo ta -R oma n g a ve the DH S hi s h ome-2-

addre ss as “26 Russ St. APT C -4, Ha rtford, CT 06106,” which is listed on the NTA. The NTAorder ed Mota-Roman to a ppear befor e an I J at “12 4 0 E . 9th Street Room 521A Cleveland OH I O US 44199” at a date and time “ to be set.” The NTA also war ned Mota-Roman that fa ilure to k e e p h is a dd

re ss c ur re nt c ou ld r e su lt i n r e mov a l in a bs e nti a : You ar e re quired to provide the I NS, in writing, with y our full mailing a ddress a nd telephone numbe r. You must notify the Imm igr ation Court immediately by using For m EOI R-33 whene ver y ou chang e y our addre ss or telephone number duringthe c o u r s e o f t h i s p r o c e e d i n g . . . . N o t i c e s o f h e a r i n g w i l l b e m a i l e d

t o t h i s a d dr e s s . If y ou do not submit For

m E OI R-33 and do not othe rwise provide a n addre ss at which y ou may be re ache d during proce eding s, then t he Government shall not be re quired to provide y ou with written notice of y our hearing

. I f y ou fail t o attend the he aring at the time and plac e desig nated on this notice , or any date and time later dire cted by the I mmi g ratio n Co ur

t, a re mov a l or de r m a

y be ma de by the i mmi g ra tio n ju dg e in y our a bs e nc e , a nd y ou may be a rr e ste d a

nd de ta ine d b y

the I NS. Mota-Roman re fused to sig n t he NTA , but his finge rprint appe are d on the document. The DHS ag ent also provided Mota-Roman wit h oral noti ce in Eng lish and S panish of t he time and plac e of his hearingand of the conseque nces of his failure to a

ppear . On Dec ember

27, 2006, the I mmigration Court mailed a “Notice of Hearing in Removal Procee dings” to Mota-Roman at the a ddress listed on his NTA, indicating t h at a hear ing w as schedule d for Ma

rch 28, 2007. The addre ss of the I mmigration C o u rt wa s listed on the notice of hear ing a s “801 W. SUP ERI OR AVE, STE13-100 CL EVEL AND, OH 44113.” On Janu ar y 31, 2008, the notice of

hear ing w as re turned to the I mmigration Court as undeliverable

. When Mota-Roman did not appea r at the Ma

rch 28, 20 0 7 h ea ri ng , the I J conducte d an in absentia hear ing. A fter de termining that Mota-Roman was serve d with written notification of the he a ri ng and th a t th e do c ume nta ry e vid e nc e e sta

bli sh e d th a t he wa s r e mov a ble , th e I J ord e re d h im

remove d to Mex ico in a bs e nti a .-3-

On Marc h 17, 2008, Mota-Roman filed a motion to reopen to resc ind the in absentia order of re moval, claiming that he fa iled to appea r due to lac k of notice. I n a written order dated Apr il 11, 2008, the I J denied Mota- Roman’s motion to reopen. On April 18, 2008, Mota-Roman timely appea led the I J ’s decision to the BIA. On J uly 15, 2008, t h e BI A, per curiam , aff irmed the I J ’s dec ision deny ing Mota -Roman’s motion to reopen. The B I A dismissed Mota-Roman’s ar g ument that the NTA was defective for fa iling to indicate the time and date of his r emoval hear ing. The B I A re asoned that, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.18(a) and (b) , while t he DHS g ener ally must provide the time, place , and date of the initial hear ing in a n NTA whe n it is practicable to do so, the I mmigration Court is responsible for scheduling the initial

re mov a l he a ri nga nd

pr ov idi ngno tic e to t

he g ov e rn me nt a nd the a lie n if

the NT A d oe s n ot c on ta in that information. There fore , beca use the immigration c ourt’s notice of he aringprovided the date and time of his hear ing, Mota -Roman was provided adequate notice of when the he aringwould be held. The B I A furthe r held that the N TA wa s n o t d efective simply beca use it listed an incorre ct
a d dr e s s f o r th e I mm ig r a ti o n Co u rt. M o ta
- Ro ma n w a s p r o v id e d w it

h th e c o r r e c t a d dr e s s in the written notice of

hear ing. The BIA re asoned that under the I NA, that wr itten notice is considere d sufficie nt if provided at the a lien’s most rece nt addre ss. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5) (A). Th e B I A w a s unp e rs ua de d b y Mo ta -R oma

n’ s a rgume nt t hat he c ou ld n ot h a ve up date d h is addre ss be cause he wa s provided the wr ong addre ss for the Immigration Court. Mot a-Roman ne ver alleg ed that he attempted to submit a cha ng e of a ddress to the I mmigrat i o n Court after rec eiving pe rs on a l se rv ic e of

his NT A, a nd he ne ve r su bmi tte d a sw or

n a ff ida vit in su pp or t of his mot ion

to reope n explaining the re ason for his failure to a

ppear . F ina lly , th e B I A dis a g re e d with Mo ta -R oma n’ s ar g ume nt that his moti on to r e op e n s ho uld-4-

be g rante d beca

use he ne ver r ece ived the notice of hear ing. T he BI A held that beca use Mota-Roman failed to update his addre ss, the I mmigration Court was not require d, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.18(b), to provide notice. On July 22 , 2 00 8, Mo ta -R oma

n f ile d a pe tit ion fo r r e vie w w iththi s Co ur t. II. Ana lys is A. Standard of

Review The B I A has “broa d discretion” to g rant or deny a motion to reopen. I. N.S . v . D oh e rty , 502 U.S
. 3 14, 323 (1992). The ref ore, w e re view the B I A’s denia l of a motion to reopen f or abuse of discretion. Id. ; Harche nko v. I .N.S. , 3 79 F .3 d 4 05 , 4 09 (6 th C ir . 2 00 4) . T his Court fi nd s a n a bu se of discretion if the denial of the motion to reope n “wa s made without a ra t i o n al explanation, inexpl icably

depar ted from e stablished policies, or re sted on an im p ermiss ible basis such as invidious di scrimination ag ainst a par ticular race or g roup.” Allabani v. Gonzales , 402 F.3d 668, 675 (6th Cir. 2005) (c itation and quotation omitt ed). Whe re , a s h e re , “ the B I A e xpre ssl y a do pts a nd

a ff ir ms the I J’s d e c isi on

bu t a dd s c omm e nts of its ow n, we dir e c tly re vie w the de c isi on of the I J whi le a lso c on sid e ri ngthe a dd iti on a l c omm e nts
m ad e b y t he [BI A].” Elias v. Gonzales , 4 9 0 F
. 3 d 4 4 4 , 4 4 9 ( 6 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 )

. O u r r e v ie w of a n in absentia remova l order i s l i m i ted to: “(i) the va lidity of the notice provided to the a lien, (ii) the

rea sons for the a lien’s not attending the proceeding , and (iii ) whether or not the a lien is removable.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5) (D). We r eg ard the adequa cy of notice a s a finding of mix ed fac t and law, Cavin v. Honda o

f A m. Mf g . , Inc ., 346 F.3d 713, 723 ( 6th Cir. 2003), which we revie w de novo, Sa nta na -A lba rra n v . A sh c ro ft , 393 F.3d 699, 703 ( 6th Cir. 2005). B. Mota-R om an Was Given Adequate Notic e of His Rem oval P roce edings-5-

Mo ta -R oma

n f ir st a rgue s th a t hi s NT A wa s de fe c tiv e fo r fa ili ng to sp e c if y the date a nd

tim e of his r emoval proce eding s. Pursuant to the I NA, an alien must be g iven writ t en n o t i ce o f “[ t] he time and place at which the pr ocee dings w ill be held.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) (1)( G)(i) . I f t he ti me or location of the hearing chang es, section 1229(a) (2)( A) further r equire s that an alien be serve d, either persona lly

or throug h the mail, with written notice of the new tim e or pla ce of the proc eeding s and the conse quence s of fa iling to attend the pr ocee dings. 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(2) (A). H oweve r, the I NA does not presc ribe re quirements for serving the NTA. I nstead, immigration r eg ulations de tail which immigration officer s may serve the NTA, see 8 C.F.R. § 239.1, and explain that the “I mmigration Court shall be responsible for scheduling case s and providing notice to the g overnme nt and the alien of the time, pl ace , and date of hearing s,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.18(a)

. Gene rally , the NTA must provide “the time, plac e, and da

te of the initial re moval hear ing, w here prac ticable,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.18(b), but if the NTA does not contain this information, “the I mmigration Court shall be responsible for scheduling the initial re moval hear ing and providing notice to the g overnme nt and the alien of the time, place, a

nd date of hear ing.” 8 C.F.R § 1003.18(b). Her e, the NT A, whi ch t h e DHS per sonally serve d on Mota-Roman, combined w ith the subsequent notice of

hear ing, satisfied the notice require ment. We a re g uided, as wa s the I J , by the Eig hth Circuit’s decision in Haider v. G onzales , 438 F.3d 902 ( 8th Cir. 2006). I n Haider , the DHS

se rv e d th e pe tit ion e r w itha n N TA , o rd e ri nghim to ap pe a r be fo re a n I J “ on a date to b e se t a t a

tim e to be set to show why the petitioner should not be removed f rom the United States.” Id. at 904. The I mmigration Court subsequently mailed t he petiti oner a notice of hear ing that indicated the date and time of the proc eeding s. Id. The Ha ide r court he ld that its “re ading of the I NA and the regulations compels the c onclusion that the NTA and the [not ice of hear ing], which we re pr operly serve d on [t he-6-

petitioner], combined to provide the requisite notice.” Id. at 907. The c ourt rea soned that “[t] he I NA simply require s t h at an alien be provided wr itten notice of his hea ring ; it does not require that the NTA ser ved on [the petitioner] satisfy all of § 1229(a )(1) ’s notice r equire ments.” Id. I ndeed, a s the Seventh Circuit rec ently explained, “DHS frequently serve s NTAs whe re the re is no imm ediate a cce ss to docketing information. I n those circ umstances, DHS may indicate in the NTA that it will give the alien subseque nt notice of the pre cise time and pla ce of the hea ring once it files the NTA with the a ppropriate immigration c ourt.” Dababneh v . Gonzales , 471 F.3d 806, 809 (7 th C ir . 2 00 6) (c iti ng8 C. F .R. § 10 03 .1 8)

. Th a t is wh a t ha pp e ne d he re . “ Th is i s n ot a sc e na ri o in which the g overnme nt failed to include a ny information re g ardingtim e an d d ate, or worse, purposef ully omitted that informati o n . Rather, DH S informed [the alien] that more information would be for

thcoming.” Id. There fore , “the NT A and the subse quent hea ring notice met all of the require ments of § 239(a )(1) .” Id. Thus, Mota-Roman’s argument that the NTA w as def icient under the I NA for failing to provide a date and time of his hea ring fails. Mota-Roman next arg ues that he w as absolved of his duty to notify the I mmigration Court of hi s updated address because the NTA contained the wrongaddre ss for the Immigra tion Court and, the re fo re , a

ny su c h a tte mpt to up date his a dd re ss wo uld have fa ile d. Th is a rgume nt i s w ith ou t me ri t. Even if we acc ept that the addr ess in the NTA w as i n co rr ect, Mota- Roman has not submitt ed any

e vid e nc e or

sw or n a ff ida vit sh ow ingthat he ma de a ny a tte mpt to upd a te his c on ta c t in fo rm a tio n w ith the I mmigration Court. I n all events, the bur den wa s on Mota-Roman, and not the DH S, to provide written notice of his c hang e of addre ss to the Immigra tion court. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229(a)(1) (F )(ii). And bec ause Mota- Roman failed to update his addre ss, the I mmigration Court was never require d, pe r i mmi g ratio n r e g ulatio ns , to no tif y him of his re mov a l pr oc e e din g s. 8 C.F .R § 10 03 .1 8( b) ; see-7-

also United States v. Estrada-Trochez , 66 F.3d 733, 736 ( 5th Cir. 1995) (explaining that “the ultimate fault [ for mis sing a hear ing] lies with the [petit ioner] for his failure to comply with a law [requiring the petitioner to update his address] that is essential to the administration of the I NS”). Mota-Roman a l s o argues his due proc ess rig hts were violated bec ause the NTA did not provide prope r notice of

his im m i gra t i o n proce eding s. We ag ree with Mota-Roman that the Due Process Clause a

pplies to all “persons” within the Un i t ed S tates, includingaliens without lawful status. Se e, e .g ., Zad

v y da s v . D av is , 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001). “D ue proc ess re quires notice that is reasona bly calc ulated, under

the circ umstances, to appr ise intereste d part i es o f t h e pende ncy of the ac tion and aff

ord them an oppor

tunity to present their

objections.” Scorteanu v . I.N.S. , 339 F.3d 40 7, 41 3 ( 6th

Cir . 2 00 3) (i nte rn a l qu otatio n a nd c ita tio n o mit te d) ; see also Mullane v. Cent. Hanov er Bank & Trust Co. , 339 U.S. 306, 318 (1950) ( stating “ that within the limi ts of prac ticability notice

mus t be su c h a s is re a so na bly c a lc ulate d to re a c h inte re ste d pa rt ie s” ). I n im mig ra tio n p ro c e e din g s, “[n ]o ti c e o f

a n e xc lu s io n h e a r in g s e n t b y r e g u la r ma il to th e la s t a d dr e s s p r o v id e d b y th e a li en
s ati sfies the re quirements of c onstitut ional due proc ess.” Gu ru ng v . A sh c ro ft , 3 7 1 F
. 3 d

7 1 8 , 721 (10th Cir. 2004). We f ind no du e pr oc e ss vio la tio n he re . M ota -R oma n g a ve a n a dd

re ss, wh ic h w a s li ste d in the NTA, but did not notify DHS or the immigration c ourt of his updated a ddress whe n he moved. Th e re c or d de mon str a te s that the I mmi g ratio n Court pr op e rl y se nt the no tic e of he a ri ngvia

fi rs t- c la ss mail to Mota-Roman’s addre ss as containe d in the NTA. The ref ore, the I mm ig r a tion Court’s method of service complied with § 239 of the I NA, 8 U.S.C. § 1229, and was re asonably calc ulated to ensure that Mo ta -R oma

n r e c e ive d n oti c e of his he a ri ng , the re by sa tis fy ingthe re qu ir e me nts of

du e pr oc e ss. See A l-Rawahneh v. I

.N.S. , 38 F. Appx. 271, 276 (6th Cir. 2002) (stating that “notice of hear ing se nt-8-

by first-cla ss mail to the last known address ha s been held to satisfy due process even if the notice i s re tu rn edas u n d el i v er ab l e” ) ( ci t i n g Estrada-Trochez , 66 F.3d at 736 & n. 1 ( holding that a notice of he a ri ngse nt t o a

n a lie n v ia

fi rs t- cla ss ma il at hi s la st k no wn a dd re ss s a tis fi e d d

ue pr oc e ss require ments where the alien f ailed to notify

the I NS of his new addr ess)). Mota-Roman fur

ther a rg ues t hat, under

the I NA, the issue of

notice does not turn on whe ther t h a t n o t i c e w a s p r o p e r l y s e n tb u tw a s a c tu a l l y rece ived

. I n support, Mota-Roman cites sever al ca ses fr o m o u r s i s t er

ci rc u i t s wh er e t h e c o u rt s re v er s ed t h e BI A’ s d en i al o f m o t i o n s t o re o p en ev en t h o u gh the alien showed nonrec eipt of notice. See Ko v . Gonzales , 4 21 F .3 d 4 53 (7 th C ir . 2 00 5) ; Joshi v. As hc ro ft , 38 9 F .3 d 73 2 (7 th C ir . 2 00 4) ; Sabir v. Gonzales , 421 F .3 d 456 (7 th C ir . 2 00 5) ; Kozak v. Gonzales , 5 02 F .3 d 3 4 ( 1s t Cir . 2 00 7)

. Hi s re lia nc e on tho se c a se s is mis pla c e d. I n e a c h o f t ho se
case s, the courts noted that the alien was not attempting to thwar t delivery of the notice

. Se e Ko , 421 F.3d at 455 (holdin g that reope ning w as wa rra nted wher e a notice of hea ring was re turned undelivera

ble but wher e the a lien “wa s [not ] deliber ately hiding f rom immigration officials” in orde r to thwa rt no tic e ); Joshi , 3 8 9 F
. 3 d a t 7 3 6 ( r e ma n d in g to th e B I A to c o n s id e r e v id e n c e that the petitioner had dilig ently

attempted, via two c er t i fi ed l et ters, to lear n the date a

nd status of her

remova l proce eding s but where she m issed her hearing beca use of a lleg ed nonre ceipt of a hear ing

no tic e ); Sa bir , 421 F.3d at 459 (“I t is undisput ed that [the petitioner] d id not rece ive the notice of his hearing[and that] it was returned to the i mmigration court marked ‘A ttempted-Not Known.’ But

w h a t if , a s th e I J s p e c u late d , it w a s [t h e p e ti ti o n e r ’ s ] o w n f a u lt th a t th e n o ti c e w a s n ot delivere d? An a lie n s ho uld

no t be a ble to m a ke him se lf

un re a c ha ble , a nd the n late r a sk to have his c a se
re op e ne d be c a

us e he did no t re c e ive no tic e .” ); Kozak , 502 F.3d at 35 (re manding to the B I A wher e the B I A a ppli ed an in appro pr ia te le g a l st a nd a rd in d e te rm ini ngwh e the r a n a lie n h a d r e c e ive d h is-9-

notice of he aringwhen the a lien acknow ledg ed the notice was prope rly addr es s ed to his curre nt addre ss but was neve r re ceive d). The bigdiffer ence here is that Mota-Roma n n ev er made a ny at t empt to apprise the Immigration Court of his wherea bouts so that notice could be r ece ived. Moreove r, Mota-Roman’ s argument overlooks express lang uag e in the I NA eliminating the notice require ment altog ether

wher e an alien fails to pr ovide updated c ontact information. See 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 a (b )( 5) (B ) ( pr ov idi ngthat “ [n]o w ri tte n n oti c e sh a ll b e re qu ir e d .

. . if the a lie n h a s f

a ile d to provide [ int e r a lia , a wr itten rec ord of a ny chang e of the alien’s a ddress or phone number]”). Mo ta -R oma

n’ s f ina l argume nt i s th a t th e B I A i mpe rm iss ibl y re qu ir e d M ot a-R oma

n to

“ de mon str a te pr e

jud ic e ” a s a pre re qu isi te to h a vin g his in absentia remova l order r escinde d. MotaRom a n a sse rt s th a t by re qu ir ing e vid e nc e that he at te mpt e d to update his a dd re ss but fa ile d b e c a

us e he wa s g iven the incor

rec t addre ss to the I mmigration Court, the BI A gra ft ed a new prejudice require ment into the I

NA that er

roneously disqualified him from re scission of the re moval order

. I n support of this arg ument, he cites se vera l decisions of the B I A an d o ur sister cir cuits in which petitioners soug ht to reopen pr ocee dings based upon “e x ceptional c ircumstance s” whe re e ither counsel or c ounsel’s staff

had committed some er

ror that resulted in the petitioners’ failure to attend

remova l proce eding s. Se e Ma tte r o f G rij alv a- Ba rre ra , 21 I
. & N. Dec
. 472, 474 n.2 (B .I .A. 1996); Ma tte r o f R iv e ra , 2 1 I
. & N. De c . 59 9, 60 8 n. 1 ( B .I .A . 1 99 6) ; Galvez- Vergara v. G onzales , 484 F.3d 79 8, 80 3 n .6 (5 th C ir . 2 00 7) ; Lo v . A sh c ro ft , 341 F.3d 934, 939 n.6 ( 9th Cir. 2003). We disag ree with Mota-Roman’s pre mi s e an d wi th his reading of the B I A’s dec ision. Be cause Mota-Roman wa s arguing ina dequate notice, the B I A was c onsidering t h e s u ff i cienc y of the notice pr ovided. The B I A noted that wr itten notice is considere d suffic i en t i f p ro vided at the

a lie n’ s mo st r e c e nt a dd

re ss. Th e B I A se a rc he d the re c or d for e vid e nc e that he a tte mpt e d to up date-10-

his address but found nothing in the rec ord indicating that he tried. Acc ording ly , the B I A found the notice of he aring , though ret u rn ed u ndelivera ble, satisfied the notice require ments in the I NA b ec au s e i t was mailed to the a ddress listed on the NTA , which wa s the last addre ss Mota-Roman provided. We do not see that the BIA imposed a re quirement of pr ejudice in its rea soning. Fur ther, Mota- Roman’s authorities do not support his arg ument. E ach of his cited ca ses contain the na

rrow holding that an alien is not re quired to show pre judice whe n a mo t i on for

resc ission of an in a bs e nti a re mov a l or de r i s b a se d u po n “ e xce pti on a l c ir cum st ances” a nd is g rounded in inef

fec tive assistance o f co unsel. Mota-Roman is not seeking to reope n based upon

e xce pti on a l c ir c ums tanc e s o r i ne ff e c tiv e a ssi stance of couns e l but r a the r b a se d u po n in a de qu a te
no tic e un de r 8 U. S.C. § 1 22 9a (b )( 5)(C)( ii) . T he re fo re , n on e of Mo ta -R oma

n’ s a uth or iti e s a

pp ly here

. At any rate , we do not rea d any prejudice require ment in the BIA’s dec ision, so thi s argument is m oo t. III. Conclusi on For the fore g oing r easons, we DENY Mota-Roman’s pe tition for review

.