FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT MARCH 13, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 06- 14140 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 23- 617- 690 C A R I D A D J E R E Z D E G A R C I A , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .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 on 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

_________________________ ( M ar c h 13, 2007) B efo re H U L L , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: C a r i da d J e r e z D e G a r c i ape t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on2

A pp ea l s’ s ( “ B IA ”) di sm i ss al of her app ea l of the Im m i grat i on Judg e’ s ( “ IJ ”) order de ny i ng he rm ot i on t o r e ope n he rde por t a t i on pr oc e e di ngs . A f t e rr e vi e w , w e de ny De Gar c i a ’ s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w.

I . B AC KG RO UN D I n 1983, D e G a r c i a , aC uba n na t i ona l , be c a m e al e ga l pe rm a ne ntr e s i de nt ( “ L P R ” ) of

the U ni t e d S t a t e s . I n 1991, D e G a r c i aw a s c onvi c t e d of c oc a i ne tr a f f i c ki ng i n F l or i das t a t e c ourta nd s e nt e nc e d t o f oury e a r s i n pr i s on. O n A pr i l 1, 1992, the I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a tur a l i z a t i on S e rvi c e ( “ I N S ” ) be ga n de por t a t i on pr oc e e di ngs a ga i ns tD e G a r c i a . T he I N S i s s ue d a n O r de rt o S how C aus e a nd N o tic e o f

H e a r in g , c h a r g in g D e G a r c iaw ith b e in g ad e p o r tab le a lie n , p u r s u a n t to f o rm e rI m m ig r a tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A c t ( “I N A ” ) § 2 4 1 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( iii) a n d ( B ) ( i) , 8 U . S . C . A . § 1251( a ) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) ( 1992) , be c aus e of he rc oc a i ne tr a f

f i c ki ng conv i ct i on , w hi ch w as bo th an agg ra vat ed fe l on y and a c on trol l ed subst ance offe nse. O n Jun e 22, 19 93 , atthe i ni t i al depo rt at i on hear i ng , D e G ar ci a app eare d w i thoutc ouns e l a nd a c know l e dge d r e c e i vi ng aw r i tt e n c opy of the O r de rt o S how C ause . D e G ar ci a s t at ed her des i re t o b e r epre se nt ed by a l aw ye r, and the IJ cont i nu ed the depo rt at i on hear i ng . B ec ause D e G ar ci a w as st i l l i n p ri son and her re l ea se dat e w as approachi ng , the IJre peat edl y w arned D e G ar ci a thather f i nal depo rt at i on hear i ng w ou l d b e hel d i n the com i ng m on ths, thatthe no t i ce of herThe F orm I -156, entitled “D eportation Docket Control Action Slip or Notice,” listed De 1 Garcia a nd her immigration ca se number a nd the followingnotation in the “Action” por tion of the form: “relea sed 508 Louisa Street Key West, FLA 33040.” Theform also stated that the action had be en taken on September 13, 1993. The I NS was abolished on Ma rch 1, 2003, a

nd its functions weretransferre d to DHS. 2 See Homela

nd Security

Act of 2002, Pub. L . No. 107-296, § 471, 116 Stat. 2135, 2205 (codif ied as amended at 6 U.S.C. § 291(a) ). 3 f i n a l d e p o rt a t i o n h e a r i n g wo u l d b e s e n tt o th e a d d r e s s De Gar c i ap r o v i d e d , th a tDe G ar ci a w ou l d n ee d t o k ee p the courti nform ed of her addres s once s he w as re l ea se d f r om pr i s on, a nd tha tthe f i na l de por t a t i on he a r i ng w oul d pr oc e e d i n abs e nt i ai f s he fai l ed t o ap p ear. D e G arci a i n d i cat ed th atsh e u n d erst o o d th e IJ’ s w arn i n g s. T h e f i n a l d e p o rt a t i o n h e a r i n g wa s s c h e d u l e d f o rOc t o b e r2 2 , 1 9 9 3 . T h e I NS s e n t th e n o tic e o f

th e h e a r in g b y c e r tif

ie d m a il to 5 0 8 L o u is aS tr e e t in K e y W e s t, F l o ri d a, an ad d ress fo u n d o n a F o rm I-1 5 6 i n D e G arci a’ s IN S fi l e. T h e p o st 1 o f f ic e r e tu rn e d th e n o tic e o f th e h e a r in g u n d e liv e r e d w ith n o f o rw a r d in g a d d r e s s . D e G a r c i af

a i l e d t o appe a ra the rf

i na l de por t a t i on he a r i ng, a nd the I J e nt e r e d the depo rt at i on order i n absent i a. I n 2 0 0 3 , a t M ia m i I n te rn a tio n a l A irp o r t, D e G a r c iaap p lie d f o ra d m is s io n to th e U n ite d S ta te s a s ar e tu rn in g L P R . T h e D e p ar tm e n t o f H o m e la n d S e c u r ity ( “D H S ” ) s e rv e d D e G a r c iaw ith aN o tic e to A p p e ar , c h a r g in g D e G a r c iaw ith

2 f a ilin g to o b ta in p e rm is s io n to r e e n te rth e U n ite d S ta te s a f te rh a v in g b e e n d e p o rte d . W h ile in r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s , D e G a r c iaa n d th e D H S f ile d ajo in t m o tio n to re op en the depo rt at i on proceedi ng s, st at i ng thatno t i ce of her hear i ng had n otbeenThe B IA also found that, pur suant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(d) a nd 1003.23, it lacked 3 jurisdiction to consider De G arc ia’s motion to reopen be causeshe had departe d the United State s. Astheg ov ernment c on c e de s, thi s Cour t re c ently c on c lude d th at th eIJ and B IA re tain jurisdiction to reopen proc eeding s wherean alien ha s been removed f rom the United States followingan in absentia order of removal for the pur

pose of addressingwhether the alien rec eived suff

icient notice of

the hea ring . Contrera s-Rodriguez v. U.S. Att’y . Gen., 462 F .3d 1314, 1317 (11th Cir. 2006) (re lying on 8 C.F .R. § 1003.23(b)(4) (ii)). 4 se ntt o h erl as tkn ow n add re ss . T he m ot i on al so i nd i ca t ed thatD e G ar ci a had ap p e a r e d s e v e r a l t i me s b e f o r e D H S a f

t e rh e rr e l e a s e f

r o m p r i s o n t o r e n e w h e rLPR c a r d . D e G a r c ias o u g h t to r e o p e n h e rd e p o r ta tio n p r o c e e d in g s s o s h e c o u ld ap p ly for aw ai ver of i nadm i ss i bi l i ty pursuantt o IN A § 2 12 (c ). T he IJdeni ed the m ot i on t o reopen, fi nd i ng that : (1) D e G ar ci a had rec ei ved no t i ce of the fi nal depo rt at i on hear i ng ather l as tkn ow n add re ss ; (2) s he w as i ne l i gi bl e f

or§ 212( c ) r e l i e f

; a nd ( 3) tha tD e G a r c i aha d “ s e l f - de por t e d” by l e a vi ng th e U n ite d S ta te s a f

te ra n o r d e ro f

d e p o r ta tio n h a d b e e n e n te r e d a g a in s t h e r . D e G a r c i aappe a l e d t o the B I A . T he B I A a f f i rm e d the I J ’ s de c i s i on, f i ndi ng th a tth e n o t i c e o f

h e a r i n g wa s p r o p e rb e c au s e i twa s s e n tt o De Gar c i a ’ s l a s tk n o wn a d d r e s s b y c e rtif

ie d m a il a n d th a t D e G a r c iaf a ile d to e x e r c is e du e d ilig e n c e in de t e rm i ni ng the s t a tus of the de por t a t i on he a r i ng ori n ke e pi ng the I m m i gr a t i on C o u rtap p ri sed o f an y ch an g e i n h er ad d ress. 3 I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n appe a l , D e G a r c i aa r gue s tha tthe B I A vi ol a t e d he rdue pr oc e s s r i ght s a nd abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on w he n i tde ni e d he rm ot i on t o r e ope n he rde por t a t i onAlthough w e also retain jurisdiction to determine our jurisdiction, De G arc ia does not 4 contest that she is an alien who is removablebased on a disqualifying of

fense . See Moorev. Ashcrof t, 251 F.3d 919, 923 (11th Cir. 2001). We reviewconstitutional challeng es de novo. Lonyem v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 352 F .3d 5 1338, 1341 (11th Cir. 2003). 5 pr oc e e di ngs be c aus e s he di d notr e c e i ve not i c e of the f i na l de por t a t i on he a r i ng. W e la c kju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w af in a l o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l if

th e a lie n is depo rt ed base d o n a conv i ct i on for a n agg ra vat ed fe l on y or c on trol l ed subst ance offe nse. 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(a) (2)( C ). “ [T ] he l i m i t at i on s on o ur j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew a fi n al o rd er o f rem o v al , i n cl u d i n g an y p ert i n en tst atu t o ry am en d m en t s, al so control ou r j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew an order denyi ng a m ot i on t o reopen a fi nal order o f r e m o v a l.” A li v . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 4 4 3 F .3 d 8 0 4 , 8 0 9 n .2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . H o w e v e r , w e r e ta in ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s o rq u e s tio n s o f la w . 8 U . S . C . § 1252( a ) ( 2) ( D ) ; s e e a l s o C a m a c ho- S a l i na s v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 460 F . 3d 1 3 4 3 , 1 3 4 6 - 4 7 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) . T h u s , th e o n l y i s s u e we m a y a d d r e s s i s De 4 G a r c i a ’ s d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m. 5 A n al i en w ho i s pre se nti n the U ni t ed S t at es i s e nt i t l ed t o d ue process un der the F i f th A m e ndm e nt . F e rna nde z - B e rna l v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 257 F . 3d 1304, 1311 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . T o c om portw i th due pr oc e s s , a n a l i e n m us tbe gi ve n not i c e a nd a n o p p o r tu n i ty t o b e h e a r d i n th e r e mo v a l p r o c e e d i n g s . Se b a s t i a n - So l e rv . U . S.An alien alsoc an s tatea

du eproc e ss c laim b y

sh owingthat sh ewa s deprive d o f a lib ert y 6 interest without due proc ess of law , which ca used substantial prejudice . Sebastian-Soler, 409 F.3d at 1287 n.14. However, “aliens do not enjoy a constitutionally

protected liberty

interest in a purely discretionar

y form of relief.”Garcia v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 329 F .3d 1217, 1224 (11th Cir. 2003). The de cision to grant or deny a motion to reopen is a discretionar y decision, even if the alien demon strate s th at sh eis entitle d tore lie f. Se e8 C. F .R. § 1 00 3. 2( a). Th ere fo re , D eGa rc ia had no prote cted liber

ty interest in havingher motion to reopen grante d and ca nnot state a due proc e ss c laim o n this b a sis . 6 A tt ’ y G en . , 4 0 9 F . 3 d 1 2 8 0 , 1 2 8 7 n . 1 4 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). H o w ev er, d u e p ro cess 6 d o es n o treq u i re th atth e al i en recei v e actu al n o t i ce o f a h eari n g ; rath er, d u e p ro cess

“ i s s at i sf i ed i f not i ce i s a cc orded i n a m anner ‘ re as on abl y c al cul at ed’ t o ensure that not i c e r e a c he s the a l i e n. ” A ni n v. R e no, 188 F . 3d 1273, 1278 ( 11th C i r . 1999) (quo t at i on m arks om i tt ed). D e G ar ci a w as ordered deport ed un der the IN A pri or t o the Il l egal I m m i gr a t i on R e f

orm a nd I m m i gr a ntR e s pons i bi l i ty A c tof 1996 ( “ I I R I R A ” ) , P ub. L . N o. 10 4-20 8, § 3 04 , 11 0 S t at . 30 09 -546 , 30 09 -587 . T hu s w e di sc uss onl y pre I I R I R A la w . U nde rthe pr e - I I R I R A I N A , not i c e of the t i m e a nd pl a c e of

the de por t a t i on h e a r in g w a s to b e p r o v id e d b y c e r tif ie d m a il. 8 U .S .C .A . § 1 2 5 2 b ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( 1 9 9 3 ) . H ow ever , an al i en w as re qu i re d t o p rovi de the A tt orney G ener al w i th a w ri tt en r e c or d of a ny c ha nge of

a ddr e s s , a nd the I N S w a s notr e qui r e d t o pr ovi de not i c e of th e h e a r in g if

th e a lie n f

a ile d to c o m p ly w ith th is a d d r e s s - n o tif ic a tio n r e q u ir e m e n t. S e e i d. § 1252b( a ) ( 1) ( F ) , ( a ) ( 2) & ( c ) ( 2) . I f the a l i e n f

a i l e d t o appe a ra tthe d e p o r t a t i o n h e a r i n g , th e a l i e n wa s r e q u i r e d t o b e d e p o r t e d i n ab s e n t i ai f th e I NSDe Ga rcia does not fac ially

challeng e the noticeand removal in absentia proc edure s of 7 the pre -IIRIRA I

NA. We previously

have uphe ld the constitutionality of those proc edure s. See Anin, 188 F.3d at 1277-78. 7 es t abl i shed by cl ear, un equi vo ca l and con vi nci ng evi dence thatw ri tt en no t i ce had been gi ven t o the al i en and thatthe al i en w as depo rt abl e. Id. § 1 25 2b (c )( 1). F u rth erm o re, w ri tt en n o t i ce w as d eem ed su ffi ci en ti f i tw as m ad e t o th e m o st r e c e n ta d d r e s s r e p o rt e db y th e a l i e n . I d . § 1 2 5 2 b ( c ) ( 2 ) ; s e e a l s o D o mi n g u e z v . U . S. A tt ’ y G en. , 28 4 F . 3d 12 58 , 12 60 (11th C i r. 20 02 ) ( expl ai ni ng that“ an al i en has a n af fi rm at i ve du ty t o p rovi de the go vernm entw i th a corr ec taddres s” and that

“ [ f ] a i l i ng t o pr ovi de the I N S w i th ac ha nge of a ddr e s s w i l l pr e c l ude the a l i e n f r om cl ai m i ng thatthe IN S di d n otprov i de hi m or her w i th n ot i ce of a hear i ng ”) ; In re G ri j al va, 21 I. & N . D ec . 27 , 33 -34, 37 (B IA 19 95 ) ( concl ud i ng thatproo f of a ctual serv i ce w as n o treq u i red w h ere th e n o t i ce o f th e h eari n g w as sen tt o th e al i en ’ s l ast know n a ddr e s s a s pr ovi de d by the a l i e n a nd tha tthe a l i e n c oul d ove r c om e the pr e s um pt i on of

de l i ve ry of

the not i c e by pr ovi di ng s ubs t a nt i a l a nd pr oba t i ve evi dence that“ no nd el i veryw as no tdu e t o the re spon dent ’ s f ai l ure t o p rovi de an a ddr e s s w he r e he c oul d r e c e i ve m a i l ” ) . U nde rpr e - I I R I R A l a w , the O r de rt o S how C aus e a l s o w a rne d the a l i e n of the a ddr e s s - not i f

i c a t i on r e qui r e m e nta nd the consequences f

or fa i l i ng t o com pl y. 8 U . S . C . A . § 1 25 2b (a )( 1)(F ) ( 19 93 ). 7 H e r e , th e r e w a s n o v io la tio n o f D e G a r c ia ’s d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts . D e G a r c ia8

ap p e a r e d in p e r s o n a t th e in itia l h e a r in g . A t th e in itia l h e a r in g , D e G a r c ia a c know l e dge d r e c e i vi ng the O r de rt o S how C aus e , w hi c h i nf orm e d he rof

the r e qui r e m e ntt o ke e p the gove rnm e ntappr i s e d of he ra ddr e s s a nd w a rne d he rof the consequences i f s he fa i l ed t o d o so. In addi t i on , the IJem ph as i ze d t o D e G ar ci a a t th e in itia l h e a r in g ( 1 ) th a t h e rd e p o r ta tio n p r o c e e d in g s w e r e u n d e rw a y ; ( 2 ) th a t it w as i m pera t i ve t o p rovi de the IN S w i th h ercurr entaddres s; (3) the consequences o f f a ilin g to ap p e a ra t th e n e x t d e p o r ta tio n h e a r in g ; a n d ( 4 ) th a t th e h e a r in g w o u ld b e co m m en ci n g i n th e co m i n g m o n th s. I n p r o v i d i n g De Gar c i an o t i c e o f th e f i n a l d e p o rt a t i o n h e a r i n g , th e I NS fo ll o w ed th e n o ti ce p ro ce d u re s in th e p re -I IR IR A IN A . S p ec ifically, D e G ar cia’s n o t i c e o f th e f i n a l d e p o rt a t i o n h e a r i n g wa s s e n tb y c e r t i f i e d m a i l t o h e rl a s tk n o wn addres s a s r ef

l ec t ed i n h eri m m i grat i on re cords. T here i s no evi dence i n the re cord th a t D e G a r c iaa d v is e d th e I N S o rth e I m m ig r a tio n C o u r t in w r itin g o f ac h a n g e in h e ra d d r e s s . T h e r e f

o r e , th e s e n d in g o f

th e n o tic e o f

th e f in a l d e p o r ta tio n h e a r in g to th e la s t a d d r e s s n o te d in D e G a r c ia ’s im m ig r a tio n f ile w a s am e th o d “r e a s o n ab ly ca l cul at ed” t o ensure thatD e G ar ci a r ec ei ved n ot i ce . F urtherm ore, the IJw as au th o rize d to p ro ce ed w ith th e d ep o rtatio n p ro ce ed in g s in ab se n ti a. D e G ar cia’s d u e p r o c e s s c la im is w ith o u t m e r it. P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.