IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60091

Summary Calendar

THIAGO ANDRE DIAS,

Petitioner

v.

LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A098 909 643

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Thiago Andre Dias, a native and citizen of Brazil, seeks review of a 

decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal 

from an immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen removal 

proceedings. In that motion, Dias sought rescission of a removal order that 

was entered in absentia after he failed to appear at his immigration hearing. 

See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). He asserted a lack of notice. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 23, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60091 Document: 00513436050 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/23/2016
No. 15-60091

2

We review the BIA’s dismissal of an appeal from an immigration judge’s 

denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings under “a highly deferential 

abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 358 

(5th Cir. 2009). We review questions of law de novo and factual findings for 

substantial evidence. Id. When, as in this case, the BIA’s decision is based, in

part, on the immigration judge’s opinion, we will consider both decisions. Zhu 

v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593−94 (5th Cir. 2007).

In the instant case, the immigration court sent Dias a notice of his 

hearing via regular mail to the address Dias provided at the time he was served 

with his notice to appear. The notice was returned as undeliverable. Dias 

argues that the lack of notice should not be attributed to him because his notice 

to appear did not adequately inform him, as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a), of 

his obligation to inform the immigration court of any changes to his mailing 

address, of the consequences for failing to provide such notice, or of the 

consequences for failing to appear at his immigration hearing. He contends 

that he should have received notice in Portuguese. However, substantial 

evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Dias was adequately advised of that 

information. Nothing in Section 1229(a) requires that the notice to appear be 

in any language other than English. Substantial evidence also supports the 

BIA’s determination that Dias failed to provide the court with a valid address. 

A motion to reopen may be denied if an alien’s lack of notice of a removal 

hearing was the result of his failure to comply with his obligation to provide 

proper address information. See Gomez-Palacios, 560 F.3d at 360−61; see 

also § 1229a(b)(5)(A)−(B). 

Dias has not shown that the BIA abused its discretion in affirming the 

immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen and rescind his removal 

order. His petition for review is DENIED.

 Case: 15-60091 Document: 00513436050 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/23/2016