T h e H o n o rab le R o b ert H o lm es B ell , U n it ed S tat es D ist ri ct Ju d g e f o r t h e W estern * D i s t r i ct of M i chi gan, s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on.

NO T RE CO M M E ND E D F OR F UL L - T E X T P UB L I CA T I ON

F i l e N am e: 10a0775n. 06 N o. 09- 3490 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT

M O U SSA S OUMAH, ) ) Pet i t i oner , ) ON PET I TI ON FOR REVI EW ) OF T HE OR DE R O F T HE v. ) BO A RD OF I M M I GRA TI O N A PPEA LS. ) E R IC H . H O L D E R , J R ., ) A t t orney G eneral of the U nit ed S t at es, ) ) R e sp o n d e n t. )

B E F O R E : M A R T I N and S I L E R , C i rcui t Judges; B E L L , D i s t ri ct Judge. * P E R C U R I A M . Pet i t i oner - A ppel l ant M ous s a S oum ah see ks r evi ew of an or der of t he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff i r m i ng an I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) deni al

o f h i s mo t i o n t o r e o p e n p r o c e e d i n g s a f t e r t h e i s s u a n c e o f

a n i n a b s e n t i a r e mo v a l o r d e r . He arg u es th at he d id n o t rec eive ad eq u ate n o ti ce o f the h ea ri n g . B ec au se w e fin d that the B IA di d not abus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng t he mot i o n to r eopen, w e af fi r m t he B I A ’ s deci s i on
a n d d e n y S o u ma h ’ s p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w.N o. 09- 3490

Soum ah v. H

ol der

2

I. Ba ck grou nd & P roce du ral His tory Soum ah i s ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of Gui ne awho e nt e r e d the Uni t e d St a t e s i n Jul y , 2003,
a nd wa s a dm i tted w ithout ava l i d i mm i gr ant

e ntry doc um e nt
. On J anuary

20, 2004, he fo rm al ly re qu es te d asylu m . The as ylum of fice r denie d h is re qu es t and re ferr ed the m atte r to th e Imm ig ratio n C o u rt. O n A u g u st 1 1 , 2 0 0 4 , th e D ep artm e n t o f H o m elan dS ecu rity ( “ DHS” ) i s s ue d aNot i c e t o Appe ar ( “ NTA” ) and m a i l e d i t t o Soum ah’ s the n- c urr e nt addres s, wh er e Sou m ah ac kn ow le dg es that he re ce ived it . This c harging d ocum ent i niti at ed
r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs a ga i ns t Soum ah and or de r e d hi m to appe ar be for e an I Jbut

di d not
s pe c i fy a t i m e or

da t e for the he ar i ng. Ra the r , i t s t a t e d tha t

the he ar i ng wa s “ To Be Ca l e nde r e d. ” The NTA a l s o a ppr i s e d hi m

of hi s resp o n si bi l i ty

t o not i fy the I mm i gr a t i on Co urt i mm ediate ly

in the event that his m ai li ng addres s c hang ed. Sou m ah m ov ed to a new
a ddr e s s i n Apr i l , 20 05 , andthe n a ga i n i n A pr i l , 20 07 ; on bo th o c c a s i on s , he no t i fi e d D HS bu t fai le d to n otify

the I mm igrati o n C o urt. On October 25, 20 06 , the Im m igrati on Co urt
m aileda N o tice o f H earin g (“N O H ”) to th e ad d ress listed o n S o u m ah ’s N T A ap p risin g h im of the dat e, ti m e, and lo cati on of his heari ng befo re the I J. So um ah cl ai m s that he never
r e c e i ve d thi s NOH. W he n Soum ah fa i l e d t o a ppe ar a t the he ar i ng on Nove m

be r 20, 2006, th e I Je n t e r e dan i n ab s e n t i ao r d e r o f r e mo v a l a g a i n s t

h i m. So um ah file d a m otion to reopen o n N ov em ber 19, 20 07 . I n that m otion, So um ah
ar gu ed that

the order shou ld no t have bee n enter ed because (1) the NT A did no t i nd ic at e aN o. 09- 3490

Soum ah v. H

ol der

3 t i m e and pl a c e for

the r em o v al h e ar i ng, ( 2) he wa s not awa r e tha t

he ha d t o not i fy

the Im m igrati on Co urt of a change of addres s, and (3 ) h e d id no t r ec ei ve the NOH . The IJ denied this mo ti o n , an d S ou m ah appeale d to the BIA. Th e BIA fo un d that the NT A w as pr ope r , and tha t

s i nc e Soum ah di d not

a ppr i s e the I mm i gr a t i on Court of hi s ne w a ddr e s s , he was not enti tl ed to re ce ive a no ti ce of hear ing. Th e B IA thus affirm ed the I J and dism is se d S o u m ah ’s ap p eal. S o u m ah tim ely f iledh is p etitio n f

o r rev iew w ith th is C o u rt. I I . Di s c us s i on A. St andar d of Re vi e w and Re l e vant Law T h e B IA h as b ro ad d iscretio n in d en yin g m o tio n s to reo p en , IN S v. D o h erty , 502 U. S. 3 1 4 , 3 2 3 (1 9 9 2 ), w h ich w e rev iew f o r ab u se o f

d iscretio n , Ha dd

ad v. Go nzales , 437 F. 3d 51 5, 51 7 (6th Cir . 200 6). W e wil l not find abuse of d is cr et ion u nles s the BIA’s denia l was arb itrary , irratio n al, o r co n trary to law
. Ss waj

j e v . As hcro

ft , 3 5 0 F .3 d 5 28 , 532 (6th Cir. 2003) ( c i t i ng Babaiv . I

NS , 985 F.2d 25 2, 25 5 (6th C ir . 199 3)). We re view qu es ti on s of law de no vo , A li v. A sh cro

ft , 366 F. 3d 40 7 , 4 0 9 (6 th C ir
. 2004) , but we a c c or d agr e a t

de a l of d ef eren ce to th e A tto rn ey G en eral’s an d th e B IA ’s p erm issib le co n stru ctio n s o f th e statu te
w h ich th ey

ad m in ister. S

ee IN S v. A g u irre-

A g u irre , 5 2 6 U .S . 4 1 5 , 4 2 4 (1 9 9 9 ); see a lso 8 U.S.C. § 1 10 3(g)(2) (granting the Attorney General t he a ut ho r i ty to promulgate re gu lati on s)
. The r e q u irem ent s for

i ni t i a t i ng r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs ar e gove rne d by 8 U. S. C. § 1 2 2 9 , an d th e p ro ceed in g s th em selv es are g o v ern ed b y 8 U .S .C
. § 1 2 2 9 a. T o in itiateN o. 09- 3490

Soum ah v. H

ol der

4 rem o v al p ro ceed in g s, th e alien is serv edw ith a ch arg in g d o cu m en t ref erredto in th e statu te
as a n o t i c e t o ap p ear. 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 (a)(1 ). T h e N T A sh o u ld , in ter a lia , s pe c i fy “ [t ]he t i m e a nd pl a c e a t whi c h the pr oc e e di ngs wi l l be he l d, ” i nc l ude “ [t ]he r e qui r e m e nt tha t the
a l i e n m us t pr ovi de the [I mm i gr a t i on Court ] i mm e di a t e l y wi th awr i t t e n r e c or d of a ny c hange of the a l i e n’ s a ddr e s s or

t e l e phone num

be r ,” and i nform

the a l i e n of the c ons e que nc e s of f ailu re to k eep th e Imm ig ratio n C o u rt in f o rm edo f h is cu rren t co n tac t i n f

o r matio n . I

d. Howe ve r , the t i m e and pl a c e i nc l ude d i n the NTA c an b e m odi fi e d fr e e l y by anot i c e of hear ing, and even this NOH is no t r equire d if the al ie n f ai ls to keep the I mm igrati on Co urt ap p risedo f

h is cu rren t ad d ress. I

d. § 1229( a ) ( 2)
. I f the a l i e n fa i l s t o a ppe ar a t the he ar i ng, hav in g re ce ived prop er

no ti ficati on or having fail ed to prov ide a curr ent a dd re ss , he c an f ace in ab sen tia rem o v al. Id

. § 1 22 9a(b)( 5). B. Effe c t i ve ne s s of t he NTA Th ough So um ah c on c e de s that he r e c e i ve d the NT A, he no w ar gu e s that itwas defici ent bec ause it

fail ed to spec ify

a t im e and plac e for his hear ing and on ly indicate d that the heari ng was “ To Be Cale nd ar ed.” Th e Attorney General ar gu es , and the BIA held, that the NTA i s e ffe c t i ve de s pi t e i t s fa i l ur e t o i nc l ude thi s i nform a t i on. Unde r the I mm i gr a t i on Court

Rul e s of Pr oc e dur e , DHS dr a ft s the NTA, s e rve s i t on th e alien , an dth en f

iles it w ith th e Imm ig ratio n C o u rt. See 8 C .F .R
. § 1 0 0 3 .1 4 (a). A lso unde r the s e Rul e s , DHS i s t o “ pr ovi de i n the Not i c e t o Appe ar , the t i m e , pl a c e and da t e ofN o. 09- 3490

Soum ah v. H

ol der

I n s o hol di ng , we no t e that a t l e a s t two of ou r s i s t e r c i r c ui t s have a l l ow e d f

or NT As 1 w h i c h d o n o t in clu d e n o tice o f th e tim e an dp lace o f

th e rem o v al h earin g . See Haider v. Go nzales , 4 3 8 F .3 d9 0 2 , 9 0 7 (8 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( “T h e [ Imm ig ratio n an dN atio n ality A ct] si mply r e qu i r e s that an a l i e n be pr ov i de d wr i t t e n no t i c e of hi s he ar i ng ; i t do e s no t re qu ir e th at th e N T A se rv e d o n [ th e a lien ] sa tisf y a ll o f § 1 2 2 9 (a )(1 )’s n o tice re q u ire m e n ts.” ); and D ababneh , 471 F. 3d at 809 ( “The fac t t hat t he gover nm ent ful fi l l ed i ts o b li g at i ons under [§ 1 2 2 9 (a)] i n tw o d o cu m en ts–rathe r than o n e– d id no t d ep ri v e t h e IJ of juri sd ict ion
. . . . ”). 5 the i niti al re m ov al hear ing, wh er e pra ct ic able .” I d. a t § 1003. 18( b)
. Howe ve r , i t i s oft e n not pr a c t i c abl e : “ DHS fr e que nt l y s e rve s NTAs whe r e the r e i s no i mm e di a t e a c c e s s t o doc ke t i ng i nf or m a t i on.” D a b a b neh v. Gon zales , 471 F.3d80 6, 80 9 (7th C ir . 200 6). I n such ci rc um st ance s, “t

he Im m ig ra tion Co urt [is ] res po nsible fo r s cheduling the init ia l r em ov al he a r i ng and pr ovi di ng not i c e t o the gove rnm e nt and the a l i e n of the t i m e , pl a c e , and da t e of hear ing.” 8 C. F .R
. § 10 03 .18(b). How ever , wri tt en no ti ce to the a li en is “c on si dere d suff ic ie nt . . . i f it was prov ided at the m ost r ec ent a dd re ss prov ided by the a li en,” i d. § 1 0 0 3 .2 6 (d ), an d , in an y case, “[ n ] o su ch n o tice sh all b e r e q u iredf o r an alien n o t in de t e nt i on i f the a l i e n ha s fa i l e d t o pr ov id e the a ddr e s s r e qui r e d i n [8 U. S. C. § 1 22 9(a) (1)( F)],” i d. § 1003. 18( b)
. Gi ve n the wi de l a t i t ude the s t a t

ut e gr ant s the Im m igrati on Co urt i n con tr olli ng it s own do cket , and given that the st at ute, too, el im inat es th e n o tice req u irem en t w h ere th e alien f ails to ap p rise th e Imm ig ratio n C o u r to f a d d r ess changes, we ho ld that

this constr

ucti on of the s tatute is perm is si b le and that the NT A’s fa i l u r e t o s pe c i fy

at i m e or da t e of the he ar i ng doe s not r e nde r i t i ne ffe c t i ve or

r e l i e ve the alien o f th e resp o n sib ility

to k eep th e Imm ig ratio n C o u rt ap p risedo f h is ad d ress. 1N o. 09- 3490

Soum ah v. H

ol der

M or eover , i n H

ai der , as her e, t he al i en does not appea r t o have r ece i ved t he N O H
. 438 F. 3d at 904. “W i t hi n fi ve day s of any change of addr es s , t he al i en must pr ovi de w r i t t en not i ce of

2 t he cha nge of a ddr es s on F o rm E O I R
- 33 t o t he I m m i gr at i on C our t w her e t he cha r gi ng document has been f

i l ed, or i f venue has been c hanged, t o t he I m m i gr at i on C our t t o w hi ch v en u e h as b ee n ch an g ed
. ” 8 C
. F
. R
. § 1 0 0 3
. 1 5 (d)(2 ). 6 C. En ti tl em ent t o n otic e So um ah a dd i t i on a l l y ar gu es th a t an a l i e n c an b e r e m ov e d i n a bs e nt i aon l y

i f D HS
e s t abl i s he s by

c l e ar , une qui voc a l , and c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e tha t the a l i e n i s r e m ovabl e and th at w ritten n o tice o f th e tim e an d p lace o f th e p ro ceed in g s w ere p ro v id edto th e alien o r to
coun se l of rec ord. So um ah do es no t con te st re m ov abil it y bu t, ci ti ng 8 C .F.R. § 10 03 .26(c) , re st s on the ar gu m ent that the Servic e did no t e st abli sh th at h e w as prov ided with writte n not i c e . I n s o doi ng, Soum ah fa i l s t o c ons i de r the e nt i r e ty

of hi s c i t e d Rul e , whi c h goe s on to st at e that “ [i]f the r es po nd ent fai ls to prov ide his or her addres s a s r equire d u nd er § 1 0 0 3 .1 5 (d ), n o w ritten n o tice sh all b e req u iredf o r an Imm ig ratio n Ju d g e to p ro ceedw ith 2
an in abse ntia hear ing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1 00 3.26 (d); see a lso id . § 10 03 .18(b) (“ No such no ti ce
s ha l l be r e qu i r e d f

or an a l i e n . . . i f the a l i e n h a s fa i l e d t o pr ov i de the a ddr e s s r e qu i r e d i n [ 8 U. S .C
. § 1229( a ) ( 1) ( F) ]. ” ) ; 8 U. S. C. § 1229( a ) ( 2) ( B) ( “ [A] wr i t t e n not i c e s ha l l not be
re qu ir ed un de r

thi s par a gr a

ph i f the a l i e n h a s fa i l e d t o p r ov i de the a ddr e s s r e qu i r e d u nd er p arag rap h (1 )(F ).”); id . § 12 29 a( b)(5)( B) (“ No writte n n otic e s hall be re qu ir ed un derN o. 09- 3490

Soum ah v. H

ol der

7 sub p arag rap h (A ) if

th e alien h as f

aile d t o p ro v id e th e ad d ress req u iredu n d er [ 8 U .S .C . § 12 29 (a )( 1)(F)].” ). I n th i s c a s e , w e f

i n d th a t b o th th e N T A an d th e N O H w e r e p r o p e r l y s e rv e d on So um ah by

m ai l, and the on ly

re as on he fail ed to re ce iv e th e NOH was that he m ov ed wi thout upda t i ng hi s a ddr e s s . I n c onc e di ng tha t he fa i l e d t o pr ovi de the ad d r e s s r e qui r e d, S o u m ah also co n ced edth at h e w as n o t en titledto rece i v e th e N O H , se e 8 U. S. C. § 1 2 2 9 (a)(2 )(B ), an dco u ldb e rem o v edin ab sen tia, se e 8 U .S.C. § 12 29 a( b)(5)( B). Accordingly , we DE NY the pe t i t i on for r e vi e w a nd AF FI RM the Boar d of Imm ig ratio n A p p eals.