The Honor able John D. H olschuh, United States District J udg e for the Souther n District of * Ohio, sitti ng by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0360n.06 No. 08-3145 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

AB DOUL AYE L Y, Petitioner,

v. ERI C H. HOL DER, J R., Attorney Gene ral of the Un ite d St a te s, Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW OF ADECI SI ON FR OM THE BO AR D OF I MMI GRATI ON A P P E A LS O P I N I O N

BEFORE: CLAY and McK EAGU E, Circuit Judges; and H OLS CHUH, District Judge. *

HOLS CHUH, District

Judge . I n this im migr ation case , Abdoulay e Ly (“Ly ”) pe titions for revi ew o f t he B oard of

I mmigration Appeals’s (“ BIA”) order aff irming the I mmigration J udg e’s (“I J ”) de nial of his motion to reope n remova l proce eding s. After L y failed to a

ppear at his removal hear ing, the I J order ed L y deporte d in a bs e nti a . Ly mo ved to r e op e n th e re mov a l pr oc e e din g s, claiming that he wa s not notified of the date and time of his re moval hear i n g. The I J denied the mot i o n t o reope n, finding that notice wa s sent to L y ’s addr ess on file, a nd L y ’s fa ilure to rec eive notice re sulted from his failure to notify the I m m i gra t i o n C o urt or the De partment of H omeland Security (“D HS”) of his a ddress c hang e. The BIA af firmed. F or the re asons below, we aff irm theNo. 08-3145

Ly v. Holder

2 BIA’s dec ision and deny

L y ’s petition for re view. I. Background and Ad m inis trat ive History L y is a native a

nd citizen of Mauritania. O n October 10, 2000, he wa s admitted i nto the United States without inspection. On Mar ch 13, 2001, Ly filed an a pplication for a sy lum with the I mmigration and Natura liz ati o n S er v ice ( “I NS”), now r econstituted as the D HS. Following an interv ie w w it

h a n a s y lum o f

f ic e r o n M a r c h 5 , 2 0 0 4 , L y ’ s a s y lum a p p li c a ti o n w a s r e f

e r r ed to the I mmi g ratio n Co ur

t. I n c on jun c tio n w ith thi s re fe rr a l, the DH S in iti a te d r e mov a l pr oc e e din g s a g a ins t L y by filing a Notice to A

ppear under se ction 240 of the I mmigration and Nationality Act (“ I NA”) , codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. The Notice to Appear char g ed Ly

as being remova

ble under the I NA

as an a lien prese nt in the United States without being a dmitted or paro l ed after inspection by an I mmi g ratio n O ff

ic e r. On July 27 , 20 04 , the No tic e to A pp e a r w a s se nt t o L

y by re g ula r m a il at hi s l a s t k n o wn ad d re s s

— 2 8 5 3 C i t i z en s P l ac e, Ap t

. E , C o l u m b u s , OH 4 3 2 3 2

. T h e No t i ce o rd er ed Ly to appea r bef ore a n immigra tion judge at an addr ess in Cleveland, Ohio, on a date “to be cale ndare d.” The Notice a lso informed L y that he must provide the I NS, in writing, with his mailing

a dd re ss a nd te le ph on e nu mbe r; that he mus t noti fy the I mmi g ra tio n Co ur t im me diate ly

wh e ne ve r h is addre ss chang es; that hea ring notices would be ma iled to his address; and if h e fa i l ed t o att end a hear ing, a remova l order c ould be issued by the immigration judge in his abse nce. At some point after

the Notice to Appe ar w as sent to L y , t h e U. S

. Citi zenship and I mmigration Services (“ C I S ”) , a division of DHS, in response to a n inquiry sent by L y ’s attorne y reg arding the status of L y ’s asylum applicati o n , ad v i s ed the attorne y that CI S no longer

had jur isd ic tio n o ve r t

he c a se a nd that L y ’s a tto rn e y sh ou ld “c on ta c t th e I mmi g ra tio n Co ur t and re qu e stNo. 08-3145

Ly v. Holder

The da te this St atus I nquiry Response wa s sent to L y ’s attorne y is unclear

from the r ecor d. 1 Why L y ’s attorne y

contac t ed the Ar lington, Virg inia I mmigration Court, and not the 2 Cleveland, Ohio I mmigration Court, is unclea r fr om the rec ord. Th e c ourt did no t se nd the he a ri ng no tic e s to L y ’s a tto rn e y , b e c a us e the a tto rn e y

did no t f ile 3 a notice of

appea ranc e on beha lf of L y

with the court until Marc h 1, 2007. 3 that they cale ndar [ L y ’s] case .” On October 2, 2006, following the C I S’s advice , L y ’s attorney sent 1 a letter to the I mmigration Court in Arlingt on, Virg inia reque sting that Ly ’s ca se be put on the Court ’s c a le nd a r. On No ve mbe r 27 , 20 06 , a lmo st t wo y e a rs a ft e r t

he No tic e to A

pp e a r w a s se nt, 2 the I mmigration Court in C leveland, O hio set L y ’s re moval hear ing f or January

10, 2007. On N o v em b er 27, 2006, the I mmigration Court sent a hear ing notice to L y at the 2853 Citi zens Pl ace addre ss. That hea ring notice wa s returne d to the court unde livered, stampe d “attempted - not known, unable to f orwa rd.” L y failed to appea

r for the J anuar

y 10, 2007 remova l hear ing. B eca

use t he DHS was not ready to proce ed on January

10, 2007, the cour

t continued the

remova l hear ing until Fe bruar y 8, 2007. On J anuar

y 10, 2007, the cour

t sent a re moval hear ing notice, re g arding the new he aring dat e of F ebrua ry 8, 2007, ag ain to L y ’s 2853 Citiz ens Place

a dd re s s . T h a t h e a r i n g n o t i c e , l i k e t h e f i r s t , w a s r e tur

n e d u n d e l i v e r e d t o t h e c o u rt

. L y fa ile d to 3 ap p ea r at h i s Fe b ru ar y

8 , 2 0 0 7 re m o v al h ea ri n g. T h e IJ co n d u ct ed t h e r em o v al h ea ri n g in a bs e nti a , and orde red Ly

remove d to Ma

uritania. A copy of the remova l order w as sent to L y at the same 2853 C i t i z e n s P l a c e a d d r e s s , b u tt h i s t i m e w a s r e c e i v e d b y L y. On Marc h 1 , 2 00 7, L y , r e pr e se nte d b y cou ns e l, f ile d a mot ion wi th t he I J to r e op e n h is

re mov a l pr oc e e din g s. L y c la ime d that he ha d no t re c e ive d e ith e r of the tw o re mov a l he a ri ng no tic e s,No. 08-3145

Ly v. Holder

4 beca use they wer e sent to his old addre ss. L y also noted that his attorney submitt ed a sta tus inquiry with the asy lum office a

nd sent corr espondenc e to the Arling ton Immigration Court on October 2, 2006, enclosing a copy

of the CI S’s response, w hich advised the attorney to contact the Immigration Court and re quest that it calenda r his client’s case. The attorney never rec eived a

response from the Ar lin g ton I mmi g ratio n Co ur

t. The I J den ie d L y ’ s mo ti o n to r e o p e n . T h e I J r e c o g n iz e d th a t L y h a d n o t r e c e iv e d th e two

no tic e s se tti ng da te s f

or his re mov a l he ari ng. A c c or din g to t he I J, ho we ve r, L y

wa s o bli g a te d to pr omp tly no tif y the c ourt or the I NS o f a ny a dd re ss c ha ng e , a nd his fa ilure to d e mon str a te that hi s lack o f n o t i ce was not due to his neg lecting the obligation to update his address pr eclude d the

re op e nin g of

his re mov a l pr oc e e din g s. L y appea led the I J ’s dec ision to t he B I A. L y argued that the DH S failed to demonstrate that L y recei ved the July

27 , 2 00 4 N oti c e to A

pp e a r. Ev e n a ssumin g that he did re c e ive the No tic e to Ap pe a r, L y

a rgue d that the No tic e did no t c on ta in the date a nd tim e of the re mov a l he a ri ng , a nd it

wa s u nd isp ute d th a t he did no t r e c e ive the un de liv e re d h e a ri ng no tic e s. The B I A dismissed L y ’s appe al. I t he ld, c ontrary to L y ’s position on appea l, that it wa s L y ’s burden to prove that he did not rec eive the hear ing notices, and no evidenc e sug g ested that he ever provided e ither the DH S or the I mmigration Court with a ne w addr ess. I t was also L y ’s burde n, the BIA found, to pr ove that he failed to r ece ive the Notice to A ppear . Acc ording to the BIA, L y failed not only to admit or deny

that he had r ece ived it, but he provided no aff idavit or other doc umentary evidenc e to show that the Notice to Ap p ear was ne ver r ece ived or that the se rvice was improper

. Re g a rd ingthe a tto rn e y ’s le tte r t o th e Ar lin g ton I mmi g ratio n Co ur

t, t he B I A n ote d th a t:No. 08-3145

Ly v. Holder

5 the only evidenc e submitted in support of [ L y ’s] motion to reope n is corre spondence sent by his attorney to the I mmigration Court in Arling ton, Virg inia, in October 2006 following a Status Inquiry Response from the Chicag o Asy lum Of fice , which states that [L y ’s ] ca se wa s r e fe rr e d to the I mmi g ra tio n Co ur t and that hi s a tto rn e y

sh ou ld contac t the court to have the ca se ca lendar ed. (J.A. 41.) The B I A also noted in a f o o t n o t e t h at it was “unc lear why the letter w as sent to the Arling ton I mmigration Court when [L y ] apparently lives in Ohio.” L y appea led the B I A’s decision to this Court. This Court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)

. II. Stand ard of Review “Where the B I A re views the immigr ation judge ’s dec ision and issues a sepa rate op i n ion, rathe r than summarily

aff irming the immigra tion judge’ s decision, we r eview the BIA’s dec ision as t h e f i n al age n cy

d et er m i n at i o n . . . T o t h e ex t en t t h e BI A ad o p t ed t h e im m i gra t i o n j u d ge’ s re as o n i n g, howeve r, this Court also revie ws the immigration judg e’s de cision.” Khalil i v. Holder , –F.3d–, 2009 WL 483241, *6 (6th Cir. Fe b. 27, 2009). This Court review s the BI A’s denial of a motion to reopen for a buse of discr etion. Haddad v. Gonzale s , 4 37 F.3 d 5 15 , 5 17 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) ; Daneshv ar v. As hc ro ft , 355 F.3d 615, 625 ( 6th Cir. 2004). This sta ndard require s us to “‘de cide whe ther the de nial of [the] motion to re open . . . was made without a rational explanation, inexplicably depar ted from

e sta bli sh e d p oli c ie s, or

re ste d on an imp e rm iss ibl e ba sis su c h as inv idi ou s disc ri min a tio n ag a ins t a particula r ra ce or g roup.’” Allabani v. Gonzales , 4 0 2 F. 3 d 6 6 8 , 6 7 5 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( qu o t i n g Balani

v . I NS , 669 F.2d 1157, 1161 ( 6th Cir.1982)). Th e Court

re vie ws the B I A’ s u nd e rl y ingle g a l c on c lus ion s de novo

. Patel v. Gonzales , 432 F.3d 685, 692 ( 6th Cir. 2005). But the Court must defe r to the B I A’s re asonable interpre tation ofNo. 08-3145

Ly v. Holder

De sp ite re c og nizi ng tha

t a pr e su mpt ion

of re c e ipt a ri se s wh e n no tic e is s e nt b y re g ula r m a il, 4 L y continues to argue that the g overnme nt bear s the b u rd en o f demonstrating that he rec eived the Notice to Appe ar. L y is misg uided. The burden is on L y to de monstrate that he did not r ece ive the J uly 27, 2004 Notice to A ppear —to r ebut the presumption of re ceipt that Ly conce des ar ose whe n the Notice w as sent to him by regular mail. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5) (C)(ii).

6 the statutes and r eg ulations that it admini sters. Id. ; IN S v . A gu irr e -A gu irr e , 526 U.S. 415, 424-25 (1999). III . Ana lys is T h e p ar am o u n ti s s u e i n t h i s ca s e i s wh et h er L y re ce i v ed , o r ca n b e ch ar ged wi t h re ce i v i n g, the Notice to Appe ar undisputedly sent to L y

by regular mail on Jul y

27, 2004. As will be explained b el o w, i f Ly

re ce i v ed t h e No t i ce t o Ap p ea r, h i s d u t y t o n o t i fy t h e go v ern m en to f h i s ad dre s s ch an ge was trig g ere d, and bec ause Ly brea ched that duty , causing his failure to re ceive notice of his re moval h earing , he could be order ed depor ted in a bs e nti a . I f L y f

a il e d to r e c e iv e th e N o tice to Appea r, ho we ve r, his du ty

to n oti fy the g ov e rn me nt of his a dd re ss c ha ng e ne ve r m a te ri a lize d, a nd he c ou ld not be re moved in a bs e nti a , e ve n if hi s add re ss c ha ng e c a us e d h is f a ilure to r e c e ive no tic e of his

remova l hear ing. L y rec og nizes that a presumption of receipt arises when a Notice to Appe ar is sent by regular mail, but argues t hat i t is a weaker presumption than t hat applied when notice is sent by

cer tified mail. L y

infers tha t the evidenc e of non- rec eipt of the Notice to A ppear rebuts that weaker 4 presumption of re ceipt. B efor e rea ching the question of whe ther Ly has demonstrated that he f ailed to rec eive the Notice to A ppear , rebutting the pre sumption of rece ipt, we must determine whe ther

or no t w e have jur isd ic tio n to a dd re ss i t.No. 08-3145

Ly v. Holder

7 A. Jurisdi ction Ly d i d n o ta l l e g e t h a th e f

a i l e d t o r e c e i v e t h e J u l y

2 7 , 2 0 0 4 N o t i c e t o A p p e a r b e f o r e t h e IJ or the B I A. As the BIA noted, “not only does he f ail to admit or deny

that he ac tually

rec eived the NTA, but he ha s provided no aff idavit or other documentar y evidenc e to r efle ct that the notice w as

n o tr e c e i v e d

o r t h a tt h e s e r

v i c e w a s i m p r o p e r . ” ( J

. A

. 4 1

. ) T h e g o v e r n m e n ta r g u e s t h a tb e c a

u s e Ly failed to e x haust administrative re medies by prese nting this issue befor e the B I A, t his Court lacks jurisdiction to consider it. We disagr ee. “[B]efore raising an immigra tion issue in f eder al court, a

petitioner must normally prese nt all revie wable issues to the BI A . . . I f the pe titioner fails to exhaust an issue before the B I A, that issue is normally

deeme d to be waive d.” Kha lil i , 2 00 9 WL 48 32 41 , a t *3 ; s e e als o S t er kaj v. Gonzalez , 43 9 F .3 d 27 3, 27 9 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 6) ; Ha sa n v . A sh c ro ft , 397 F.3d 417, 420 (6th Cir. 2005); Ra ma ni v . A sh c ro

ft , 378 F.3d 554, 560 ( 6th Cir. 2004). But if the B I A sua sponte r aises and r ules

on the m erits of an is sue, t he BI A waives the ex haustion require ment. Kha lil i , 2009 WL 483241, at *6. The Supreme Court has explained that “ [e] x haustion is g ener ally require d as a matter o f p r e v e n t i n g p r e m a tu r e i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h a g e n c y p r o c e s s e s , . . . [ g i v i n g t h e a g e n c y] an opportunity

to corre ct its own err ors, to aff ord the pa

rt i es and the c ourts the benef it of its ex perie nce and expertise, and to c ompile a rec ord which is ade quate f or judicial revie w.” [ W

einberge r v. ] Sa lfi , 4 2 2 U

. S

. [ 7 4 9 , 7 6 5 , 9 5 S

. C t

. 2 4 5 7 , 4 5 L. Ed.2d 522 (1975).] Whil e these are important conce rns, “[w]here the B I A has issued a dec ision considering the merits of a n issue, even sua

sponte, these inter ests have been fulfilled.” Sidabutar [ v. Gonzales ], 5 0 3 F

. 3 d [1 1 1 6 , ] 1 1 2 1 [( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) ]. Id. at * 5 (q u o t i n g Bin Lin v. Attorney Gene ral , 543 F.3d 114, 125 ( 3d Cir. 2008)). The ref ore, appellate jurisdiction arises whe n the B I A sua sponte raises and rules on the mer its of an issue. Id.No. 08-3145

Ly v. Holder

8 at *6. I n th is c a se , altho ug h the B I A not e d tha t L y did no t deny re c e ivi ng the No tic e to A pp e a r, it

ne ve rt he le ss c on sid e re d th e e vid e nc e c on c e rn ing the iss ue . The B I A r e fe rr e d to the fa c t th a t L y did not provide an a ffidavit swe aring that he did not rec eive the N ot i ce t o Ap p ea r or a ny other documentar

y evidenc e to show that notice w as not rec eived or that the servic e was improper. The BIA also re fer

red to the evidence L y submitt ed in support of hi s motion—t he letter L y ’s attorne y

sent to the Arling ton I mmigration Court—but failed to further c omment on that evidence

. Th e Court

fi nd s that the B I A no t on ly ra ise d the iss ue of wh e the r L

y re c e ive d th e No tic e to Appea r, but it also ruled on the mer its of the issue. There fore , this Court has jurisdiction to consider the issue. See Kha lil i , 2009 WL 483241, at *6. B. Appli cable Law An I J can or der t h at an alien be depor ted in a bs e nti a if the DHS establishes by clea r, unequivoca l, and convincingevidenc e that the a lien was notified of the re moval hear ing a nd that the alien is in f

act remova

ble. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b) (5)( A). To sufficie ntly notify an alien of a re moval he a ri ng , th e DH S mus t ser ve a No tic e to A

pp e a r e ith e r o n th e a lie n— pe rs on a lly

or by re g ula r m a il to the alien’s most rec ent address—or on the alien’s attorney

. 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1) ; I mmigration Court Rules of P rocedure, 8 C.F .R. § 1003.13. The Notice to Appe ar must contain, among othe r thi ng s, the da te and ti me of the re mov a l he a ri ng , a nd a n e xplanatio n o f t

he a lie n’ s o bli g a tio n to immediately

update the a ddress a

nd telephone number on file with the court in the eve nt of cha ng es to avoid in a bs e nti a de po rt ation. 8 U .S. C. § § 1 22 9( a )( 1) (F ), (G )( i) . O nc e a n a lie n is notified—throug h the Notice to Appe ar—of his obligation to provide the DHS or the I mmigrationNo. 08-3145

Ly v. Holder

8 U

. S. C. § 1 2 2 9 a ( b ) ( 5 ) ( B ) p r o v id e s th a t “[n] o writtenn o ti c e s h a ll b e r e qu ir e d u n d e r [§ 5 12 29 a(b) (5) (A)] if

th e ali en has fai led to pro vi de th e add res s requ ir ed un der sect io n 1 22 9(a) (1) (F) of this title.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) (1)( F) (ii) provides that “ the alien must provide the A ttorney Gene ral immediately

with a written re cord of

any chang e of the alien’s a ddress or te lephone number .” 9 Court wi th a c ur rent add re ss, if the a lie n f

a ils to u pd a te his a dd

re ss a s r e qu ir e d, le a vin g him

unrea chable by the court, no further notice need be provided to the alien, and the I J may conduct the

re m o v al h ea ri n g in a bs e nti a . 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5) (B ); Mec aj v. Muk asey , 263 Fe d. App’x 449, 5 451 (6th Cir. 2008) (finding that “[n] otice is not require d when the a lien fails to provide a curr ent

a dd re ss a s r e qu ir e d b y

statut e ” ); Sabir v. Gonzales , 4 2 1 F. 3 d 4 5 6 , 459 (7th Cir. 2005) (“ An alien sh ou ld n ot b e a

ble to m a ke him se lf un re a c ha ble , a nd the n la te r a sk

to h a ve his c a se re op e ne d b e c a us e he did no t r e c e ive no tic e .” ); Dominguez v. U.S. Attorney Ge n. , 284 F.3d 1258, 1260 ( 11th Cir. 2002); In re G- Y -R- , 2 3 I

. & N. De c . 1 81 , 1 87 -8 8 ( B I A 2 00 1) (f ind ingthat an a lie n mu st b e inf or me d o f h is obligation to provide the court with a current address before an in a bs e nti a remova l hear ing e nsues for f ailure to provide a cur

rent a ddress). An a lie n’ s in a bs e nti a d ep o rt at i o n o rd er wi l l b e r es ci n d ed , an d

t h e r em o v al p r o ce ed i n gs reope ned, if the a lien demonstrates that he neve r re ceive d notice—throug h a Notice to Appear —of his obligation to provide the Immigration Cour t or the DHS with a c urre nt addre ss. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b) (5)( C)(ii) (An in a bs e nti a de po rt a tion ord e r c a n b e re sc ind e d u po n a n a lie n’ s mo tio n to

re op e n a t any

tim e “ if the a lie n de mon str a te s that the a lie n did no t r e c e ive no tic e in a c c or da nc e wi th pa ra g ra ph (1 ) or (2 ) of [8 U .S. C. § 12 29 (a )]. ” ); In re G-Y-R- , 23 I . & N . Dec . at 187-88. The service upon an alien by regular mail of a wr itten Notice to Appea r cr eate s a re buttable pre sumption t hat the alien in fa ct re ceive d the notice. Mec aj , 2 6 3 Fe d

. Ap p ’x at 4 5 1 (c i t i n g Sa lta v . I NS , 314 F.3d 1076,No. 08-3145

Ly v. Holder

Acc ording to the BIA: 6 We find that it is proper to apply some presumption of re ceipt to a Notice to Appear or Notice of He aring sent by regular mail whe n the notice was proper ly addre ssed and mailed ac cording to normal offic e proc edure s. This presumption, howeve r , is w e a k er than that ac co rd ed t o notice sent by cer tified mail. There fore , when a responde nt seeks to re open proc eedi n gs b as ed on a claim of lac k of re ceipt of notice , the question to be deter

mined is whether the responde nt has prese nted suffic ient evidenc e to over come the w eake r pre su m p t i o n of deliver y attache d to notices de liv e re d b y

re g ula r m a il. Matter of M-R-

A- , 24 I . & N . Dec . 665 (B I A 2008).

10 1079 (9th Cir. 20 0 2 )). But the pre sumption, as L y points out, i s weaker tha n that applied whe n

no tic e is s e rv e d b y

c e rt if ie d ma il. Id.

6 The we aker

presumption of rec eipt acc orded to notice sent by regular mail ca

n be re butted throug h direc t o r circ umstantial evidence

. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.2(c) (3) ( A motion to rescind an in ab se nti a remova l order “ must include documentar y evidenc e, which de monstrates that .

. . [t ]he alien did no t r e c e ive the no tic e . . . . ” ); Mec aj , 2 63 F e d. Ap p’ x at 4 51 (“[T]he B oa rd mus t c on sid e r a ll rele vant evidenc e, including circ umstantial e vidence , offe red to r ebut the pre sumption of rece ipt.”); Sembiring v. Gonzales , 499 F.3d 981, 989-90 (9th Cir. 2007) (8 C.F.R. § 208.2(c) (3) “ permits but does not requir e inclusion of an a ffidavit” a s part of the documentar y evidenc e an a lien must include in a motion to rescind an in a bs e nti a re mov a l or de r t o d e mon str a te fa ilure to r e c e ive no tic e .) ; Matter of M-R-A

- , 24 I . & N . Dec . 665 (B I A 2008). In Matter of M-R- A- , th e B I A li s te d examples of evidenc e, both direc t and circ umstantial, which should be consider ed when an alien seeks to rebut t h e w e a k e r

p r e s u m p t i o n o f r e c e i p t t h a t a r i s e s f

r o m s e r v i c e b y r e g u l a r m a i l

. 2 4 I. & N

. D e c . 6 6 5 ( B IANo. 08-3145

Ly v. Holder

The Nove mber 27, 2006 a nd J anuar

y 10, 2007 hear i n g n o t i ce s were returne d to the 7 I mmigration Court with t he notation on the enve lopes: “re turn to s en d er , att empted - not known, unable to for

war d.” 11 2008). An

inf le xible a nd ri g id ap pli c a tio n of the pr e su mpt ion of de liv e ry is n ot a pp ro pr ia te when r eg ular mail is the method of ser vice of a Notice t o Appea

r or Notice of Hea ring . I n deter

mining whe ther a

responde nt has rebutted the weaker pr esumption of deliver y applicable in the se circ umstances, an I mmigration Judge may consider a v ar i e t y o f f

a ct o rs i n cl u d i n g, b u tn o tl i m i t ed t o , t h e f o l l o wi n g: (1 ) t h e r es p o n d en t 's aff idavit; (2) af

fid av i t s from fa

mily members or

other individuals who ar e knowledg eable about the fa cts rele vant to whether notice wa s rec eived ; (3) the responde nt's a ctions upon learningof the in abse ntia order , and whe the r due dilig ence was e x erc ised in seeking to redre ss the situation; (4) any prior af firmative a

pplication for r elief, indicating that the r espond en t h ad an incentive to appea r; (5) a ny prior application for

relief filed wi t h the I mmigration Court or any prima fa cie e vidence in the record or the respondent' s motion of st atutory elig ibilit y for r elief, indicating that the re spondent had a n incentive to appe ar; (6) the re spondent' s previous attendanc e at I mmigration Court hearing s, if applicable ; and (7) a ny other c ir c u ms ta n c e s o r e v id e n c e in d ic a ti n g p o s s ib le n o n r e c e ip t of n o ti c e . We e mp h a s iz e that th ese a re jus t e xamp le s o f t he ty pe s o f e vid e nc e tha

t c a n s up po rt

a mot ion to reope n. I mmigration J udg es ar e neither require d to de ny reope ning if exactly such evidenc e is not provided nor oblig ed to g rant a motion, even if eve ry

ty pe of e vidence is submit ted. Each c a s e must be evaluated based on its own particular circumstance

s and evide nce . Id. (empha sis added). C. Ly Pr esum ptively Rec eived the Not ice t o Appear L y ’s motion to reopen is devoid of any direc t e vidence to show that he failed to r ece ive the Notice to Appe ar. Ly failed to attach an affidavit to his motion to reope n to support his alleg ation that he neve r re ceive d the Notice to Appe ar. Mor eover , unlike with the two subsequ en t l y sent No tic e s o f H e a ri ng , Ly

pr e se nts a

bs olu te ly no do c ume nta

ry e vid e nc e to s ug g e st t

hat th e No tic e to Appea r wa s returne d to the I mmigration Court undelivere d. Absent direc t evidence , the question 7No. 08-3145

Ly v. Holder

12 become s whether

or not the circ umstantial evidence in this case is sufficie nt to overcome the presumption of re ceipt ac corde d to notice sent by regular mail. The a

nswer is no. L y infers tha t he fa iled to rec eive the Notice to A ppear beca

use he move d from 2853 Citiz ens Place, Apt. E, Columbus, OH 43232 to 2779 Citiz ens Place , Apt. D, Columbus, OH 43229 before July 27 , 2 00 4—

the date the No tic e wa s ma ile d. No wh e re in the re c or d doe s L y a ff ir ma tiv e ly state exactly when he moved. Acc ording to L y ’s brief , the addr ess to which the Notice to Ap p ear was

se nt— the old Citi zen s Plac e a dd re ss— wa s “se ve ra l y e a rs old ” wh e n the No tic e wa s ma ile d o n July 27, 2004. Yet it would appea r fr om the fac t that L y

attended his a sy lum interview on Mar ch 5, 2004—just months befor e the Notice to Appear w as mailed—that he was still capable of re ceiving notice at the old Citiz ens Place addre ss soon before the Notice to Appea r wa s sent. Fur thermore , as pre viously mentioned, the Notice to Appear was not re turned unde livered. F inally , reg ardle ss of wh e n Ly mov e d f ro m the old Citi zen s Pla c e a dd re ss to the ne w Citi zen s Pla c e a dd re ss, re g ula

r m a il sent to L y ’s old addre ss obviously was sometimes re ceive d by L y at his ne w addre ss. L y rec eived the final re moval order

even thoug h it was sent to his old address in Fe bruar y 2007. L y attache d to his mot ion to reopen c orre spondence from his atto rn ey to the DHS and the Arling ton I mmigratio n C ourt, but this evidence is insuffic ient, standing alone, to re but the presumption that L y

rec eived the N otice to Appea r. S ometime in 2006, L y ’s attorney asked the DHS about the status of L y ’s asy lum case . I n response to that inquiry , the DHS notified L y ’s attorne y that L y was “ in removal proc eeding s or y our application for asylum was ref err ed to the I mmigration Court. This office no longe r has jurisdiction ove r y our asylum c ase. Please contac t the I mmigration Court having jurisdiction over y our ca se.” ( J .A. 14.) A handwr itten note s aid “[ p]l ease contac t theNo. 08-3145

Ly v. Holder

13 I mmigration Court and reque st that they cale ndar your client’s c ase.” (J.A. 14.) On October 2, 2006, L y ’s a tto rn e y

se nt a le tte r t o Jose phEg ozc ue, Cour t A dmi nis tr a tor , A rl ing ton I mmi g ratio n Co ur

t, 901 N. Stuart St., Suite 1300, Arling ton, VA 22203, reque sting that L y ’s case “be put on the Court’s cale ndar

. . . at y our ea

rliest convenie nce.” (J.A. 12.) L y ’s attorne y enclose d a copy

of the Status I nquiry Response fr om the Chicag o Asy lum Office

. I t could be ar g ued that this co rrespondence is some evidence that L y never rec eived the N o t i c e t o A p p e a r . It

c o u l d j u s ta s e a s i l y b e i n f

e r r e d f r o m t h i s c o r

r e s p o n d e n c e , h o w e v e r , t h a tLy

rec eive d th e N o ti c e to A p p e a r , kn e w h is c a s e w a s in r e mo v a l p r o c e e d in g s , a n d in qu ir e d w ith the asy lu m office simply

to find out the date of his re moval hear ing. T he Notice to Appear did not contain the date and time of Ly ’s re moval hear ing. T he Notice to Appea r was sent to L y

from the Supervisory

Asy lum Office r in the Chicag o Asy lum Office , which would explain why L y ’s attorne y sent the status inquiry

to the Chicag o Asy lum Office . Moreove r, g iven the nature of these ty pes of pr o c e e d in g s , th e lo n g

time lag s, and the oc casiona l communication problems betwe en asy lum offices and immigr ation courts, it would be logical for L y ’s attorne y to start with the asy lum office to inquire about L y ’s re moval proce eding s. There fo r e , L y ’ s c o r responde nce w ith the DHS and the I mmigration Court is at best very

wea k circ umstantial evidence of non-r ece ipt of the Notice to Appe ar, a nd is not enoug h to rebut the pre sumption t hat L y did in fact re ceive the Notice to Appe ar. Th e Court

re c og nize s th a t so me of the fa c tor s f

ro m Matter of M-R-

A- for de termining whether or not an a lien has succ essfully rebutted the weak presumption of re ceipt we igh in Ly ’s favor . 24 I . & N . Dec . 665 (B I A 2008). L y filed a “prior affir mative application for re lief, indicating that [he] had an incentive to appear .” Id. L y not only filed an a sy lum application, but he appe are dNo. 08-3145

Ly v. Holder

14 at his a sy lum inter

view. Fur

thermore , L y acte d quickly upon lear ning of the in a bs e nti a order , and exercised due diligenc e in see king to r edre ss the situation. See id. Hi s in a bs e nti a remova l hear ing was he ld on Fe b ru ar y

8, 2007, and he move d to reope n on Marc h 1, 2007. This circumstantial

e v i d e n c e i s o u t w e i g h e d , h o w e v e r , b y e v i d e n c e t h a t t e n d s t o s h o w t h a t L y r e c e i v e d t h e No tic e to Ap pe a r; the No tic e to A

pp e a r w a s not re tur

ne d to the I mmi g ra

tio n Cour t unde liv e re d, L y

a pp a re ntl y

re c e ive d no t i c e o f

h i s a s y l u m i n t e r

v i e w a th i s o l d

a d dr e s s j u s ta

f e w m o n t h s b e f

o r e t h e N o t i c e to Appea r wa s sent, and L y

—as demonstra ted throug h his r ece ipt of the re moval order

—was re ceiving

re g ula r ma il se nt to his old Citi zen s Pla c e a dd re ss. Gi ve n that the c ir c ums tanti a l evi den ce i n this

c a se is i ns uf

fi c ie nt s tand inga lon e , w ith ou t an a ff ida vit or a ny si mi lar do c ume nta

ry e vid e nc e to

su pp or t hi s a lle g a tio ns of

no n- re c e ipt , Ly ha s fa ile d to r e bu t th e pr e su mpt ion of re c e ipt a c c or de d to the J uly 27, 2004 Notice to Appe ar. The ref ore, Ly presumptively

rec eived the N otice to Appea r. D. Ly W as Obli ga te d t o U pdat e His Add r e ss Given that L y

presumptively

rec eived the July

27, 2004 Notice to Appe ar, he was infor med, as required under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) (1)( F) (ii), of his obligation to notify the DHS or the Immigration Court in the event of a

n addre ss chang e. The Notice to Appe ar pr ovided: [y ]ou must notify the I mmigration Court immediately by using Fo rm E OI R-33 wh e ne ve r you

c ha ng e y our a dd

re ss o r t e le ph on e nu mbe r d ur ingthe c ours e of

thi s pr oc e e din g . Y ou

wi ll b e pr ov ide d w itha

c op y of thi s for

m. N oti c e s o f h e a ri ng wi ll b e s e n t t o t h i s a d d r e s s . I f y o u d o n o t s u b m i t F o r m E O I R

- 3 3 a n d d o n ot o the rw ise provide a n addre ss at which y ou may be re ache d during proce eding s, then the Go v er n m en t s h al l n o t b e r eq u i re d t o p ro v i d e y o uwi t h wr i t t en n o t i ce o f y o u r h ea ri n g. (J.A . 1 1. ) D e sp ite bei ng inf or me d o f h is o bli g a tio n to pr ov ide a c ur re nt a dd re ss, L y ne g le c te d to up da te the DH S or

the I mmi g ratio n Co ur

t w ithhis ne w C iti zen s Pla c e a dd re ss. B y fa ili ng to u

pd a teNo. 08-3145

Ly v. Holder

15 his address, Ly

made himself unr eac hable by the I mmigration Court. Theref ore, the court wa s not require d to provide L y with notice of the date and time of his r emoval hea ring in order to pr ocee d in a bs e nti a . See 8 U .S. C. § 12 29 a (b )( 5) (B ); Mec aj , 2 63 F e d. Ap p’ x at 4 51 ; In re G- Y -R- , 23 I . & N

. Dec . at 187-88. B eca

use the c ourt was not required to notify L y of t he date and ti me of his hearing in or der to proc eed in a bs e nti a , L y cannot now r ely

on his failure to re ceive the hea ring notices as a basis for

reope ning his re moval proce eding s. See 8 U .S. C. § 12 29 a (b )( 5) (B ); Mec aj , 263 Fe d. Ap p’ x at 4 51 ; Dominguez , 2 84 F .3 d a t 12 60 (“ F a ili ng to p ro vid e the I NS w itha c ha ng e of a dd re ss

w il l p r e c lu d e th e a li e n f

r o m c la im in g th a t t

h e I N S d id n o t p r o v id e h im

o r h e r w it h n o ti ce of a hear ing.” ). The B I A d i d n o t ab u s e its discretion, there fore , by aff irming the I J ’s dec ision to deny L y ’s motion to reopen. E. Other Issues The two re maining issues in this case ar e more quickly and ea sily

resolved. L

y argues that the I J and the BIA erred in relying on the BI A’s decision in Matter of Grijalva beca use the strong pr e su mpt ion

of re c e ipt a c c or de d to no tic e se nt by c e rt if ie d ma il f ro m Grijalva should not be applied in this case , wher e the Notice to A ppear was sent by regular mail. 21 I

. & N. Dec . 27 (B I A 1995). Contrary to L y ’s ar g ument, howeve r, nothin g i n t h e I J ’s or the B I A’s opinions sugg ests that the presumption of rec eipt acc orded to c ertified mail w as employ ed in this ca se. The I J cited to Grijalva simply for the pr oposition t hat the burde n was Ly ’s to demonstrate that he failed to re ceive notice, not for the pr oposition t hat L y was required to overc ome t he st rong presumption of receipt ac corde d to notice sent by

cer tified mail. L y

ref ers to a c ircuit split on the applicability of a w eak pr esumption of re c e ipt that ar ise s whe n noti c e is se nt by re g ula r ma il as op po se d to ce rt if ie d mai l, a

nd ur g e s th isNo. 08-3145

Ly v. Holder

16 Court to adopt the weak presumption. The Six th Circuit in Mec aj , as well as t he BI A in Matter of G-Y -R- , has alre ady

adopted the w eak pr esumption of rec eipt with r espec t to notice sent by regular mail and, as e x plained above , we apply that weak presumption today

. See M ecaj , 263 Fe d. App’x at 451; Matter of M-R-

A- , 24 I . & N . Dec . 665. L y also argues that the B I A er red by not following its own pre cede nt in In re G- Y -R- , 2 3 I. & N . Dec . 181 (B I A 2001). The BIA did not err, how ever , by failing to f ind that its holding in In re G-Y-R- automatically entitled L y to the relief

he soug ht. I n In re G- Y

-R- , th e a lie n und isp ute dly failed to rec eive the notice to appea r—it was re turned to the I mmigration Court undelivered. Id. at 182. I n this case , the J uly 27, 2004 Notice to Appea r was not returne d to the I

NS or t he I mmigration Court, and the cir cumstantial evidenc e sug g ests that L y did in fact re ceive the Notice. IV. Conclusion For these re asons, we DENY L y ’s petition for re view.