Opinion ID: 2756501
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Removal In Absentia

Text: 4 The written notice must also include the following: (1) “[t]he nature of the proceedings”; (2) “[t]he legal authority under which the proceedings are conducted”; (3) “[t]he acts or conduct alleged to be in violation of law”; (4) “[t]he charges against the alien and the statutory provisions alleged to have been violated”; and (5) the alien’s rights with respect to counsel. INA § 239(a)(1)(A)-(E), 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(A)-(E). 11 Case: 13-15688 Date Filed: 12/02/2014 Page: 12 of 17 An alien who, after being given the written notice required by § 1229(a)(1), fails to attend her removal hearing shall be ordered removed in absentia if DHS establishes by “clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence” that written notice was provided to the alien and that the alien is removable. INA § 240(b)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.26(c) (requiring DHS to establish that written notice of the time and place of proceedings, as well as the consequences of failure to appear, was provided to the alien). For in absentia purposes, written notice is sufficient if sent to the most recent address provided by the alien under § 1229(a)(1)(F). INA § 240(b)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.26(d). Following entry of an in absentia removal order, an alien may seek rescission of the order via a motion to reopen by showing that she “did not receive notice in accordance with [§ 1229(a)(1)].” INA § 240(b)(5)(C)(ii), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). The alien must submit “affidavits or other evidentiary material” in support of her motion to reopen. INA § 240(b)(5)(C)(ii), (c)(7)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii), (c)(7)(B). C. Reyes-Almendarez Failed to Show Lack of Written Notice Here, Reyes-Almendarez argues that the IJ abused his discretion in denying her motion to reopen because she was not given proper written notice of removal 12 Case: 13-15688 Date Filed: 12/02/2014 Page: 13 of 17 proceedings or the statutory obligation to provide the immigration court with an updated address. The record, however, belies her claims. In ruling on the motion to reopen, the IJ considered (1) the complete copy of the NTA submitted by DHS, which included the correct certificate of service bearing Reyes-Almendarez’s signature and fingerprint, (2) the I-213 Form, which stated that agents gave her the NTA before her release on September 12, 2005, and (3) Reyes-Almendarez’s affidavit, in which she merely asserted that she did not “recall” receiving the NTA. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s findings that Reyes-Almendarez was personally served with the NTA while detained on September 12, 2005, and that personal service was sufficient to establish the written notice of removal proceedings required by § 1229(a)(1). See Ayala, 605 F.3d at 947-48. Furthermore, Reyes-Almendarez failed to show lack of written notice by attacking the sufficiency of the subsequent NOH. The NTA initiating her removal proceedings, which the record indicates Reyes-Almendarez received on September 12, 2005, included the “Failure to Appear” provision advising Reyes-Almendarez of her statutory obligation to update her address and the in absentia consequences of failing to do so, in accordance with § 1229(a)(1)(F). Thus, the duty to provide the immigration court with an updated address attached upon personal service of 13 Case: 13-15688 Date Filed: 12/02/2014 Page: 14 of 17 the NTA on Reyes-Almendarez. See Matter of Anyelo, 25 I. & N. Dec. 337, 338-39 (BIA 2010). Reyes-Almendarez did not provide a change of address pursuant to this known duty until over five years after her removal hearing, and is therefore precluded from claiming that she did not receive notice. See Dominguez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 284 F.3d 1258, 1260 (11th Cir. 2002) (“[N]otice [mailed] to the alien at the most recent address provided by the alien is sufficient notice” for in absentia removal.). Because the immigration court properly mailed the NOH to the most recent address provided by Reyes-Almendarez—the Chamblee, GA address listed on the NTA and the I-213 Form—she could not rely on the fact that the NOH was returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable. See INA § 240(b)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A). In sum, the IJ was within his discretion in finding that ReyesAlmendarez received sufficient notice to allow for in absentia proceedings. D. Jurisdiction Even if written notice mailed to her Chamblee, GA address was sufficient, Reyes-Almendarez’s motion to reopen argued that the first IJ lacked “jurisdiction” in 2006 to order her removed in absentia. Reyes-Almendarez’s motion contended that, at the time of the September 5, 2006 removal order, the actual administrative record before the first IJ contained an incorrect certificate of service signed by Salmeron. In opposition to Reyes-Almendarez’s motion to reopen, DHS filed the 14 Case: 13-15688 Date Filed: 12/02/2014 Page: 15 of 17 correct certificate of service signed by Reyes-Almendarez, showing she received the NTA in 2005. Even though she was in fact served with the NTA back in 2005 when the NTA was filed, Reyes-Almendarez argues that the administrative record in 2006 did not include the correct certificate of service, and thus the first IJ lacked “jurisdiction” to act or rule in any way. We disagree. Congress has granted immigration judges the authority to conduct removal proceedings under INA § 240, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. See INA § 101(b)(4), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(b)(4); see also INA § 240(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(1). The regulations governing initiation of these removal proceedings provide that “[e]very removal proceeding conducted under [§ 1229a] . . . is commenced by the filing of a notice to appear with the immigration court.” 8 C.F.R. § 1239.1(a). In addition, the rules of procedure for immigration courts state that “[j]urisdiction vests, and proceedings before an [IJ] commence, when a charging document is filed with the Immigration Court by [DHS].” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a) (located within a subpart entitled “Immigration Court—Rules of Procedure”). Furthermore, the rules state that “[t]he charging document must include a certificate showing service on the opposing party pursuant to § 1003.325 which indicates the Immigration Court in which the charging document is filed.” Id.; see 5 Section 1003.32(a) requires “[a] certification showing service . . . on a date certain [to] accompany any filing with the [IJ] unless service is made on the record during the hearing.” 8