FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T OCTOB ER 14, 2011
J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
No. 1 1- 11 84 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 96 -0 18 -0 66

LAW RENCE MELCHOIR FANFAIR
,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Peti ti on er,

ve rs us

U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a Deci si on of t he Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 1 4, 2 01 1)

Befo re MAR CUS, WILSON an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM:

Lawren ce Mel ch oi r Fan fai r, a na ti ve a nd ci ti zen of Guyana, pe ti ti on s fo rrev ie w of th e Bo ard of Im m ig rat io n App eal s’s (“ BIA’s”) de ni al o f h i s m ot io n to

reo p e n h i s r e m ov al pr oc eed in gs , pu rs ua nt to 8 C.F.R. § 10 03 .23 (b ), ba se d on it s

fin di ng th at Fan fai r fai le d to de m on st rat e th at no ti ce fo r th e 20 03 he ari n g h e fai le d

to att en d was im

pr op erl y se rv ed

. On app eal
, Fan fai r arg ue s th at th e BIA ab us ed it s

di sc ret io n in de nyin g hi s m o t i o n t o r e op en be cau se it fai le d to co ns id er pe rti ne nt

ev id en ce, ch ie fly his swo rn affi da vi t, in di cat in g th at he ha d fai le d to rece iv e no ti ce

of th e 2 00 3 h eari ng . After c aref ul rev ie w, we den y

th e p et it io n.

W he re, as he re, th e BIA is su es it s an op in io n affi rm in g th e Im m ig rat io n

Ju dg e’s (“ IJ ”) ru li ng “ fo r th e reas on s ci te d to th erei n,” we wil l rev ie w bo th th e BIA’s

an d th e IJ ’s ord ers . Tang v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 5 78 F.3d 12 70 , 12 75 (11 th Cir . 2 00 9)

(rev ie win g th e IJ ’s de ci si on to th e ex te nt th at th e BIA fo un d th at it s reas on in g was

su pp or te d b y

th e rec or d)

.

W e rev ie w th e BIA’s de ni al of a m ot io n to reo pe n fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Ali

v. U.S. Att ’y Gen
., 44 3 F.3 d 80 4, 80 8 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ). The BIA’s di sc ret io n is qu it e

br oa d, an d rev ie w “ is li m it ed to de te rm in in g whe th er th ere ha s b e e n an ex erci se of

ad m in is t r a ti ve di sc ret io n an d whe th er th e m at te r of ex erci se ha s be en arb it rary or

cap ric io us .” Id

. (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. The BIA’s fact ua l fin di ng s are co ns id ered

“ co nc lu si ve un le ss a reas on ab le fact fin de r wou ld b e c o mpel le d to co nc lu de to th e

co nt rary.” Lon y em v. U.S Att ’y Gen
., 35 2 F.3 d 13 38
, 13 40 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 03 ). In th e

2co nt ex t of a mo t i o n t o r e op en , whe th er an al ie n rece iv ed su ffi ci en t no ti ce of hi s

rem ov al he ari ng is a fi nd in g o f fac t. See Co nt rera s- Ro dr iq ug ez v . U.S. Att ’y Gen
.,

46 2 F.3 d 13 14
, 13 17 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ) (g ran ti ng pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w an d rem an di ng fo r

th e BIA to co ns id er in th e fir st in st an ce whe th er pe ti ti on er rece iv ed a su ffi ci en t no ti ce

of he ari ng be fo re b ei ng rem ov ed in ab se nt ia ).

Ord in ari ly, if an al ie n fai ls to ap pe ar fo r an as y lu m he ari ng , hi s ap pl ic at io n wil l

be de ni ed

. 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 a(b )(5 )(A); se e al so 8 C .F.R. § 1 20 8.2 (c)( 3) (ii ). B ut an

al ie n m ay m ov e to reo pe n pr oc eed in gs at an y ti m e if hi s un ex cu se d ab se nc e an d th e

su bs eq ue nt en try of an in ab se nt ia rem ov al or de r res ul te d from a fai lu re t o p ro pe rly

no ti fy hi m of th e he ari ng an d “ th e fai lu re to ap pe ar was th ro ug h no fau lt of th e al ie n.”

8 U.S.C. § 12 29 a(b )(5 )(C) (ii ).

Serv ic e by m ai l is a pr op er fo rm of no ti ce. 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 (c). “ Due pr oc es s

is sa ti sf ie d so lo ng as th e m et ho d of n o t i c e i s co nd uc te d in a m an ne r reas on ab ly

cal cu la te d to en su re th at no ti ce reac he s th e al ie n.” Dom i n g u e z v

. U .S. Att ’y Gen
.,

28 4 F.3 d 12 58
, 12 59 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 02 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d ). An al ie n be ars an

affi rm at iv e res po ns ib il it y to ke ep th e ag en cy in fo rm ed of hi s co rrec t, cu rren t ad dr es s.

8 U.S.C. § 13 05 (a); Dom in gu ez, 28 4 F

. 3 d a t 12 60

. Giv en th is du ty, “ no ti ce to th e

al ie n at th e m os t rece nt ad dr es s pr ov id ed by th e al ie n is su ffi ci en t no ti ce,” jus ti fy in g

an in ab se nt ia rem ov al . Dom in gu ez, 2 84 F.3d at 1 26 0.

3Here, th e IJ ’s an d BIA’s de te rm in at io ns th at Fan fai r’s affi da vi t, st an di ng al on e,

was in ad eq ua te to de m on st rat e im pr op er se rv ic e was ne it he r arb it rary no r cap ric io us

.

As the reco rd s sh ows , im m ig rat io n offi ci al s det ai ne d Fan fai r up on hi s arri va l in th e

U n it ed St at es in 20 03 an d no ti fie d hi m th at hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m ha d be e n

refe rred to an IJ

. Fo ll owi ng rel eas e, th e ag en cy se rv e d F a n f a i r w i th a no ti ce of an

as y lu m he ari ng , s ch ed ul e d f o r May 2 00 3, by m ai li ng it to th e ad dr es s it ha d on fil e

fo r hi m : “ 2 St ep he ns Ct
., Bro ok l yn , N Y 11 22 6- 75 14 .” Fan fai r di d no t at te nd hi s

he ari ng , an d an IJ acco rd in gl y or de red hi m rem ov ed in ab se nt ia

. In 2 0 1 0
, F a n f a ir

fil ed th e pr es en t m ot io n t o r e o p e n hi s as y lu m pr oc eed in gs be fo re th e IJ
, on th e

gr ou nd s th at he ne ve r rece iv ed th e 20 03 no ti ce of he ari ng , an d p r ov id ed a swo rn

affi da vi t in di cat in g th at th e ad dr es s he pr ov id ed to im m ig rat io n of fic ia ls in cl ud ed an

ap art m en t n um

be r, whe reas th e n ot ic e o f he ari ng in cl ud ed no su ch nu m be r.

Howev er, bo th th e BIA an d IJ pr op erl y co nc lu de d th at t h i s affi da vi t was

un co rro bo rat ed

. W hi le th e ad dr es s li st ed in th e no ti ce of he ari ng co ul d be ex pl ai ne d

by ag en cy of

fic ia ls ’ erro ne ou s om is si on of an ap art m en t nu m be r, Fan fai r su bm it te d

no co rro bo rat in g st at em en t fr om hi s u nc le th at th ey

li ve d t og et he r at th at ad dr es s at

t h e ti m e of hi s he ari ng

. In de ed
, he di d no t su bm it an y ev id en ce, be y o n d h i s

se lf- se rv in g st at em en t, to sh ow th at “ 2 St ep he ns Co ur t” ev en ha d ap art m en ts , m uc h

le ss th at he act ua ll y li ve d in “ Apt

. 1.” It wou ld no t ha ve be en di ffi cu lt fo r Fan fai r to

4do so : by hi s own ad m is si on , he ha d be en se nt en ced to pr ob at io n fo r la rcen y in New

Yor k, whi ch wou ld ha ve req ui red hi m to pr od uc e an accu rat e, cu rren t ad dr es s to hi s

pr ob at io n of

fic er, who co ul d th en ha ve su bm it te d co ur t reco rd s or se rv ed as an

ad di ti on al wit ne ss

. See N.Y. Pen al Law § 65 .10 (3 )(a) a n d ( c ) (req ui rin g as a

m an da to ry co nd it io n of pr ob at io n th a t a p r o b a ti on er m ak e hi m se lf av ai la bl e to a

pr ob at io n o ffi cer a t “ hi s p la ce o f ab od e” an d re po rt a ny chan ge of a dd res s)

.

Fu rth er su pp or ti ng th e so un dn es s of th e BIA’s an d IJ ’s de ci si on s was th e fact

th at th ey were ba se d no t on l y o n F an fai r’s ev id en ce, bu t al so on ev id en ce in th e

av ai la bl e reco rd th at he di d no t su bm it
, so m e of whi ch te nd ed to un de rm in e hi s cl ai m

.

In pa rti cu la r, Fan fai r was pe rs on al ly se rv ed in 20 03 wit h bo th a no ti ce of refe rral an d

a no ti ce of an earl ie r as y lu m he ari ng

. The se no ti ces ex pr es sl y pr ov id ed warn in gs th at

if h e d id no t ap pe ar fo r hi s as y lu m he ari ng , he r is ke d re cei vi ng an in ab se nt ia ord er

of rem ov al

. Fan fai r di d no t m ai nt ai n -- an d th e reco rd do es no t refl ect -- th at he ev er

co nt act ed ag en cy of

fic ia ls to ch ec k on th e st at us of hi s pr oc eed in gs fo ll owi ng hi s

rel eas e. Rat he r, he wait ed un ti l Feb ru ary 20 10 to fil e a m ot io n to reo pe n. Tak in g in to

co ns id erat io n th at Fan fai r co ul d fil e a m ot io n at an y ti m e reg ard in g im pr op er no ti ce,

an d as su m in g it to be tru e th at he di d no t kn ow ab ou t th e rem ov al or de r un ti l he was

de ta in ed in 20 09 , th e si gn ifi can t lap se wit ho ut an y pr oa ct iv e in te res t in hi s pen di ng

im m ig rat io n pr oc e ed in gs no ne th el es s de tra ct s fro m hi s al le ga ti on th at th e no ti ce of

5ap pe ar was se nt to th e wro ng a dd res s to be gi n wit h. Eve n as su m in g arg ue nd o th at

Fan fai r’s su pp or ti ng ev id en ce m ad e hi s cl ai m a “ cl os e qu es ti on ,” whe n we co ns id er

h i s affi da vi t ag ai ns t th e co nt rary ev id en ce, th e BIA an d IJ were no t co m pe ll e d t o

co nc lu de th at Fan fai r’s affi da vi t was su ffi ci en t to ov erco m e th e pr es um pt io n th at th e

ag en cy se nt th e no ti ce of he ari ng to th e rig ht ad dr es s. See Lon y em , 35 2 F.3 d at 13 40

.

Acco rd in gl y , we den y

th e p et it io n fo r rev ie w.

PETI TI ON FOR REVIE W DENI ED.

6