interim Decision #3060 

MATTER OF HAIM 

In Exclusion Proceedings 

A-28593629 

Decided by Board April 11, 1988 

(1) Where an immigration judge conducts an exclusion or deportation hearing in absentia, an alien can move to have the immigration judge reopen the proceedings 

when the cause of the alien's failure to appear relates to facts not before the immigration judge at the time of his decision. 

(2) When t1 he :is for a motion to reopen is that the immigration judge held an in 

absentia hearing, the alien must establish that he had "reasonable cause" for his 

absence from the proceedings. 

(3) A party seeking to reopen the proceedings must state the new facts which he 

intends to establish, supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material. 

(4) A motion to reopen proceedings will be granted if the alien had reasonable cause 

for his failure to appear. 

EXCLUSION: Act of 1952—Sec. 212(a)(20) [8 U.S.C. § 1182(aX20)]—No valid immigrant visa 

ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: Jose R Capiro, Esquire 

1430 S.W. First Street, Suite 15 

Miami, Florida 53135 

BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Dunne, Morris, Vacca, and Heilman, Board Members 

In a decision dated December 2, 1987, an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded and deported from the United States. 

The applicant has appealed. The appeal will be dismissed. 

The record reflects that exclusion proceedings were instituted on 

April 1, 1987, and notice was sent to the applicant on October 15, 

1987, informing her that the exclusion hearing was scheduled for 

9:00 a.m. on November 12, 1987, at the Office of the Immigration 

Judge, '7880 Biscayne Boulevard, 8th Floor, Miami, Florida. The applicant did. not appear for the hearing on November 12, 1987, and 

the immigration judge proceeded with the hearing in absentia, 

found that she had failed to establish her admissibility, and ordered. her excluded and deported from the United States. 

GA1 
Interim Decision #3060 

On her Notice of Appeal (Form I-290A), the applicant contends 

that the immigration judge abused his discretion when he found 

that she failed to establish admissibility by the "mere" reason that 

she did not appear before the immigration judge. The applicant 

contends that she should have been given an opportunity to explain why she was not present at the hearing. The applicant requests that her case be remanded to the immigration judge for a 

new hearing in which she would be given an opportunity to explain 

why she was absent from the exclusion proceedings. It is not alleged that the appeal is based on facts that were a matter of record 

at the time of the immigration judge's decision. 1 

The applicant's complaint that she should have been given an opportunity to explain why she was not present for the exclusion 

hearing is irnfounded. Aliens in either exclusion or deportation proceedings do have such opportunities. Where an immigration judge 

conducts an exclusion or deportation hearing in absentia, an alien 

can move to have the immigration judge reopen the proceedings 

when the cause of the alien's failure to appear relates to facts not 

before the immigration judge at the time of his decision. 

A party seeking to reopen exclusion proceedings must state the 

new facts which he intends to establish, supported by affidavits or 

other evidentiary material. 8 §103.5 (1988); Matter of LeonOrosco and Rodriguez-Colas, 19 I&N Dec. 136 (BIA 1983; A.G. 1984). 

When the basis for a motion to reopen is that the immigration 

judge held an in absentia exclusion hearing, the alien must establish that he had "reasonable cause" for his absence from the proceedings. Matter of Nafi, 19 I&N Dec. 430 (BIA 1987); ef. section 

242(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b) (1982); Matter of Patel. 19 I&N 

Dec. 260 (BIA 1985), aff 'd, Patel v. INS, 803 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 

1986); Matter of Marallag, 13 I&N Dec. 775 (BIA 1971) (in absentia 

deportation hearing). If the alien had reasonable cause for his failure to appear, the motion will be granted; if he did not, the motion 

will be denied. The alien may take an appeal to the Board if the 

motion is denied by the immigration judge. See 8 C.F.R. §§3_1(b), 

8.8 (1988). 

In the case at bar, the applicant did not move to reopen the exclusion proceedings; rather, she filed an appeal of the immigration 

judge's decision. In Matter of Nafi, supra, we held that when an applicant for admission has notice of his exclusion hearing and fails 

to appear, the immigration judge may, in his discretion, find that 

the applicant has failed to establish his admissibility and has aban1The applicant has indicated that she will not submit a separate written brief on 

appeal. 

642 
Interim Decision #3060 

Boned applications for benefits under the Act. We further held that 

the immigration judge may order the applicant excluded and deported from the United States. 

In this case the record reveals that the applicant was sent a notification of the date and place of her exclusion hearing, but she 

failed to attend the hearing. On the record before the immigration 

judge, which is the record we review on appeal, the applicant has 

not established reasonable cause for her absence. In fact, the applicant does not allege that the claimed error by the immigration 

judge was based on facts of record before him. Therefore, we find 

that the immigration judge properly conducted the exclusion proceedings in the applicant's absence. See Matter of Nafi, supra. The 

applicant's request that the record be remanded to the immigration 

judge for a new hearing to explain why she failed to appear is 

without merit and is denied. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 

CA'?