# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 8- 32 80

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Nels on Pin os Gon zal ez

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.

W il li am P. Barr, At to rn ey

Gene ral of t he Uni te d S ta te s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __

Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: May 14, 2 01 9

Fi le d: Ju ly 5, 20 19

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re BENTON, W OLLMAN, and GRASZ, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

W OLLMAN, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Nels on Pi no s Gon zal ez pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w of t h e d e ni al by th e Bo ard of

Im m ig rat io n App eal s (th e Bo ard ) of hi s m ot io n to reo pe n in a b s e nt ia de po rta ti on

pr oc eed in gs fro m 19 94

. He arg ue s th at he di d no t rece iv e ad eq ua te no ti ce o f th e

ch arg es ag ai ns t hi m

. Fi nd in g no ab us e of di sc ret io n in th e Bo ard ’s de te rm in at io n th at

Pi no s h ad fai le d t o e st ab li sh a cas e fo r reo pe ni ng , we den y th e p et it io n.Pi no s en te red th e Uni te d St at es wit ho ut in sp ect io n in 19 92

. Afte r wor ki ng in

a res ta ur an t in Ne w Y or k fo r se ve ral m on th s, he vi si te d hi s br ot he r-i n- la w in

Mi nn eap ol is

, w h e r e h e was arre st ed in an im m ig rat io n rai d. W hi le Pi no s was in

cu st od y, im m ig rat io n of

fic ia ls dr aft ed an Ord er to Sh ow Cau se ch arg in g hi m wit h

el ig ib il it y fo r de po rta ti on

. The Ord er to Sh ow Cau se co nt ai ne d no ti ces of rig ht s an d

co ns eq ue nc es writ te n in bo th Eng li sh an d Sp an is h, a co py of Pi no s’s fin ge rp rin t, an d

a de cl arat io n si gn ed by an im m ig rat io n ag en t th at th e fo rm ha d be en read to Pi no s in

S p a n is h. The no ti ce of rig ht s an d co ns eq ue nc es ad m on is he d Pi no s th at he wa s

req ui red to pr ov id e an ad dr es s whe re he co ul d be co nt act ed a n d t h a t he was to

pr ov id e writ te n no ti ce of an y ch an ge in a d d r e s s

. Pi no s pr ov id ed a Mi nn eap ol is

ad dr es s an d si gn ed th e Ord er to Sh ow Cau se

. He th en si gn ed an Ord er of Rel eas e on

Rec og ni zan ce fo rm

th at was wri tt en on ly in En gl is h.

Upo n hi s rel eas e, or sh or tl y th erea fte r, Pi no s ret ur ne d to New Yor k. Not ic e of

hi s de po rta ti on pr oc eed in gs was se nt to th e Mi nn ea polis ad dr es s th at he ha d pr ov id ed

, whe re it was si gn ed fo r bu t ne ve r fo rward ed

. He was o r d e r e d de po rte d in Mar ch

19 94

.

Pi no s lat er m ov ed to New Have n, Co nn ect ic ut , wher e h e ev en tu al ly earn ed a

fu ll -ti m e job an d fa th ered th ree U.S. ci ti zen ch il dr en wit h hi s lo ng -te rm pa rtn er. In

2012, an im

m ig rat io n at to rn ey ad vi se d hi m to se lf- rep or t to Im m ig rat io n an d Cu st om s

Enfo rcem en t (ICE), whi ch he di d. He co nt in ue d m eet in g wit h hi s lo cal ICE of fic ers

fo r ap pr ox im at el y fiv e y ears

. I n t h e m ean ti m e, Pi no s’s at to rn ey tri ed an d fai le d in

20 14 to reo pe n hi s de po rta ti o n pr oc eed in gs , an d hi s ap pe al was di sm is se d by th e

Bo ard

.

In Octo be r 20 17

, Pi no s’s lo cal ICE br an ch ab ru pt ly in fo rm ed hi m th at he m us t

le av e th e co un try by Nov em be r 30

. Pi no s th erea fte r fil ed a m ot io n wit h ICE fo r a

di sc ret io na ry st ay of rem ov al

, whi ch was de ni ed

, an d ne w m ot io ns wit h th e Bo ard to

reo pe n hi s pr oc eed in gs an d st a y h i s rem ov al

, whi ch were al so de ni ed

. W it h ne w

-2

-co un se l, he su bs eq ue nt ly fil ed th e pr es en t m ot io n to reo pe n. He co nt en ds th at th e fu ll

Ord er to Sh ow Cau se was ne it he r pr es e n t e d to hi m no r read to hi m in Sp an is h.

Acco rd in gl y , he cl ai m s th at he was u na ware of th e req ui rem en t th at he ap pr is e

im m ig rat io n of

fic ia ls of hi s su bs eq ue nt ch an ge in ad dr es s, whi c h r e s ul te d in hi s

ab se nc e fro m

th e h eari ng

.

A mo ti on to reo pe n in ab se nt ia pr oc eed in gs ba se d on la ck of no ti ce m ay be

br ou gh t at an y ti me. S e e 8 C .F.R. § 10 03 .23 (b )(4 )(i ii )(A)(2 ). “ A pa rty se ek in g to

reo pe n ex cl us io n pr oc eed in gs m us t st at e th e ne w fact s whi ch he in te nd s to es ta bl is h,

su pp or te d by affi da vi ts or o t h e r ev id en ti ary m at eri al .” Mat te r of Haim

, 19 I. & N.

Dec. 64 1, 64 2 (BIA 1 9 8 8)

. W he n th e un de rlyin g pr oc eed in g was he ld in ab se nt ia

,

“ th e al ie n m

us t es ta bl is h th at h e ha d ‘reaso na bl e cau se ’ fo r hi s ab se nc e fro m th e

pr oc eed in gs .” Id

. W e rev ie w th e Bo ard ’s refu sa l to reo pe n pr oc eed in gs fo r ab us e of

di sc ret io n, an d we wil l affi rm un le ss th e de ci si on w a s “ar b it rary, irr at io na l, or

co nt rary to la w.” Carr et e-M ic he l v. INS, 74 9 F.2 d 49 0, 49 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 84 ); se e al so

INS v . Abu du , 48 5 U.S. 9 4, 1 05 (19 88 ).

Pi no s fir st arg ue s th at th e Bo ard fai le d to ad dr es s th e m eri ts of hi s cas e be cau se

it erro ne ou sl y de te rm in ed th at hi s m ot io n fai le d on pr oc ed ur al gr ou nd s. The Bo ard ’s

or de r cl earl y st at es , ho wev er, th at Pi no s was en ti tl ed to br in g hi s m ot io n at an y ti m e.

The Bo ard d e n i e d Pi no s’s m ot io n on th e m eri ts

, co nc lu di ng th at he ha d pr ev io us ly

ad m it te d in hi s fir st m ot io n to reo pe n th a t h e h a d rece iv ed a “ ch arg in g do cu m en t,

al th ou gh it was refe rred to as a ‘N o t ic e to App ear’ in th e m ot io n.” A Not ic e to
App ear is th e ch a r gi ng do cu m en t no w us ed in rem ov al pr oc eed in gs , fo ll owi ng th e

en act m en t of th e Ill eg al Im m ig rat io n Refo r m a n d Im m ig ran t Res po ns ib il it y Act of

19 96 . As pr ev io us ly stat ed , h owe ve r, th e ch arg in g do cu m en t p rep ared for Pin os in

19 93 was c al le d a n Ord er t o S ho w Cau se

.

Pi no s con te nd s th at hi s pr io r st at em en t co ns ti tu te d a m ere erro r by hi s fo rm er

co un se l, as ev id en ced by th e e r r on eo us us e of th e te rm “ Not ic e to App ear.” The

-3

-Bo ard he ld th at Pi no s was req ui red to es ta bl is h in e f f e c t i ve as si st an ce of co un se l to

ne ga te th e ad m is si on , bu t th at he ha d rai se d no su ch arg um en t. See Mat te r of Loz ad a,

19 I. & N. Dec. 63 7, 63 9 (BIA 19 88 ) (“ Lit ig an ts are ge ne ral ly bo un d by th e co nd uc t

o f th ei r at to rn ey s, ab se nt eg reg io us ci rcu m st an ces .”). W e ha ve he ld th at “ jud ic i a l

ad m is si on s are bi nd in g fo r th e pu rp os e of th e cas e in whi ch th e ad m is si on s are m ad e

in cl ud in g ap pe al s.” St at e Farm Mu t. Aut o. In s. Co . v . Wort h i n g t o n , 40 5 F.2 d 68 3,

68 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 68 ); se e al so Lop ez-R ey es v. INS, 69 4 F.2 d 33 2, 33 4 (5 th Ci r. 19 82 )
(ap pl y in g th e jud ic ia l ad m is si on s do ct rin e to an ad m is si on m ad e in an im m ig ra t i on

ad m in is tra ti ve he ari ng ). The Bo ard di d no t err in bi nd in g P i n o s by hi s pr io r

ad m is si on , ab s e n t a sh owi ng of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l. See Mar ti ne z v.

Bal ly’ s La., In c., 24 4 F.3 d 47 4, 47 7 (5 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (“ A jud ic ia l ad m is si on is

co nc lu si ve , un le ss th e co ur t al lo ws it to be wit hd rawn .” (q uo ti ng Kell er v. U n i t ed

St a t e s , 58 F.3 d 11 94

, 11 98 n.8 (7 th Ci r. 19 95 ))); Loz ad a, 19 I. & N. Dec. at 63 9
(h ol di ng th at ab se nt a sh owi ng of “ eg reg io us ci rcu m st an ces ,” a li ti ga nt m us t es ta bl is h

in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l to ne ga te co un se l’s b i n d i n g act ). Pi no s do es no t

cl ai m in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l i n t hi s ap pe al

.

Eve n se tt in g Pi no s’s ad m is si on as id e, hi s al le ga ti on s are c o n tra di ct ed by hi s

pr io r affi da vi ts an d th e ph y si cal ev id en ce. In hi s f i r s t a f f i d a vi t, fro m 20 14

, Pi no s

st at ed :

I to ld th e of

fic ia ls m y in te nt io n was to go to New Yor k, th ey ne ve r to ld

m e or ga ve m e an y pa pe r to ch an ge m y ad dr es s. I di d no t he ar an y th in g

an d I th ou gh t th e co ur t was fin is he d. I ne ve r go t m ai l fro m th e ad dr es s in Mi nn es ot a.

I ne ve r rece iv ed an y m ai l an d I o n l y r e c ei ve d fro m th e of fic ia ls at th e jail a le tt er i n [E]ngl is h. My fri en d to ld m e it sa [id ] a da te wou ld be

co m in g fo r co ur t, bu t he co ul d no t ex pl ai n whe n or if it wou ld be in New

Yor k.

-4

-In hi s se co nd affi da vi t, fro m 20 17 , h owe ve r, Pi no s sa id , “ I do n’t rem em be r ex act ly

wha t t he off

ic er t ol d m e or ga ve m e. I can ’t rem em be r if th e o ffi cer s po ke to m e in

Eng li sh or Sp an is h or to ld m e to go to co ur t. I rem em be r a n o f

f i c e r t oo k m

y

fin ge rp rin ts

, bu t th at is pr et ty m uc h a l l

. ” F i na ll y , in hi s cu rren t affi da vi t, Pi no s

de sc rib es th e ev en ts as f

ol lo ws:

The y cal le d ou r na m es o ne by on e an d pr oc eed ed to ta ke us to a de sk

whe re an of

fic er wou ld as k us qu es ti o n s

. . . . Afte r a lo ng wait

, th ey cal le d m y na m e. The of

fic er st art ed as ki ng m e qu es ti on s. Afte r he was do ne wit h th e qu es ti on s, he as ke d m e to pu t m y fin ge rs o n a n i n k pa d

an d m ad e m e p res s m y

fin ge rs ag ai ns t a s he et of p ap er.

At o n e p oi nt

, we al so si gn ed so m e do cu m en ts

. I do no t kn ow wha t
do cu m en t s we si gn ed

, I fig ur ed it was jus t do cu m en ts th at th ey us e to

pr oc es s pe op le

. The d o c u men t s were no t read to m e in Eng li sh or Sp an is h an d th e of

fic er ne ve r c l e a r l y ex pl ai ne d to m e wha t I was si gn in g.

. . . [Rec en tl y ] I reca ll ed an im m ig rat io n ag en t te ll in g us in Sp an is h th at

we sh ou ld wait fo r th e do cu m en ts th at ex pl ai n th e ne xt st ep s in th e m ai l.

I do n’t re cal l be in g to ld wha t were th e co ns eq ue nc es if I di dn ’t f ol lo w th ro ug h. Al l I k ne w was t ha t s om et hi ng m ay arri ve in th e m ai l.

. . . I did no t l eav e th e d et en ti on faci li ty w it h a ny do cu m en t i n h an d.

In ad di ti on to hi s own pr io r st at em en ts —wh ic h a r e in co ns is te nt an d co nt rad ic to ry

reg ard in g whi ch fo rm s he was gi ve n an d ho w m uc h he can rem em

be r—P i no s’s

cu rren t as se rti on s are al so co nt rad ic t e d by th e ph y si cal ev id en ce. A sp eci al ag en t

cert ifi ed th at th e Ord er to Sh ow Cau se ha d be en read in Sp an i s h an d pe rs on al ly

se rv ed up on Pi no s. Pin os th en si gn ed th e li ne m ark ed in bo th Eng li sh an d Sp an is h

“ ack no wled gm en t/ rece ip t of th is fo rm .” In li gh t of thi s evi de nc e, th e Bo ard di d no t

ab us e it s di sc ret io n in co nc lu di ng th at Pi no s ha d fai le d to es ta bl is h reas on ab le cau se

fo r hi s ab se nc e fro m

hi s d ep or ta ti on pro ceed in gs ba se d o n l ack of n ot ic e.

-5

-Fi na ll y , we la ck juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e Bo ard ’s refu sa l to su a sp on te reo pe n

th e pr oc eed in gs , s ee Tam en ut v. Mu ka se y , 52 1 F .3d 10 00 , 1 00 4- 05 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 )
(en ba nc ), an d we co nc lu de th at th e Bo ard di d no t err in de cl in in g to ru le on Pi no s’s

al te rn at iv e m ot io n to rem an d th e cas e to th e im m ig rat io n co ur t, se e In re L-V-K-, 22

I. & N. Dec. 97 6, 97 8 (BIA 19 99 ) (h ol di ng th at a m ot io n fo r rem an d is th e fu nc ti on al

eq ui va le nt of a m ot io n t o re op en ).

The pe ti ti on for rev ie w is de ni ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-6

-