Opinion ID: 694880
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether an In Absentia Hearing Was Properly Held

Text: 16 Estrada-Maciel contends that the BIA erred by dismissing his appeal from the IJ's order of deportation because the IJ improperly held his deportation hearing in absentia since he was present outside the courtroom at 1:00 p.m. when the hearing was scheduled to begin. This contention lacks merit. 17 A deportation hearing may be held in absentia if the alien has been given a reasonable opportunity to be present and fails to appear. 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252(b); INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1038-39 (1984). 18 Here, Estrada-Maciel concedes that he had notice of the hearing date and time, and, thus, a reasonable opportunity to be present at the hearing. See Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. at 1038-39. In addition, the record indicates that the IJ did not begin the hearing until 1:15 p.m., after the court interpreter, at the direction of the IJ, paged the hallway and waiting-room for Estrada-Maciel and received no response. Thus, despite Estrada-Maciel's claim to the contrary, the evidence in the record supports the BIA's conclusion that Estrada-Maciel was not at the courtroom for the hearing as scheduled. Consequently, the IJ properly held Estrada-Maciel's deportation hearing in absentia.