Opinion ID: 65740
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Initial Removal Proceedings

Text: On December 5, 2002, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”)1 served Sanchez-Becerra with a Notice to Appear (“NTA”). The NTA charged that (1) on or about January 1, 1980, Sanchez-Becerra, a native and citizen of Mexico, illegally entered the United States through Texas; (2) on September 27, 1991, Sanchez-Becerra’s status was adjusted to lawful permanent resident based on his seasonal agricultural work; (3) on November 18, 1993, Sanchez-Becerra was convicted in Alabama state court of second-degree rape; and (4) based on this conviction, Sanchez-Becerra was removable under Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony as defined in INA § 101(a)(43)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A). On February 4, 2003, Sanchez-Becerra did not appear for his removal hearing. An IJ ordered him removed in absentia based on his second-degree rape 1 Congress abolished the INS on March 1, 2003 and replaced it with the Department of Homeland Security. See Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002). 2 conviction. In April 2004, Sanchez-Becerra was removed to Mexico. On October 23, 2004, Sanchez-Becerra was arrested by federal Border Patrol agents in New Mexico. He was charged with illegal reentry, but the indictment was dismissed after Sanchez-Becerra argued his initial removal proceedings in abstentia were fundamentally unfair. B. Reopened Removal Proceedings and § 212(c) Waiver Request On June 16, 2005, Sanchez-Becerra and the government filed a joint motion to reopen Sanchez-Becerra’s removal proceedings. The motion stated SanchezBecerra never actually received notice of the removal hearing because the INS listed his address as the county jail and sent the notice of the hearing there, but in the interim he had been released on bond. The IJ granted the motion and reopened the removal proceedings on September 12, 2005. The IJ continued the removal proceedings five times between April 2006 and May 2007, at least four of which were attributed to Sanchez-Becerra’s counsel being sick and/or Sanchez-Becerra’s not filing the required written applications for relief from removal. During the course of these continued hearings, SanchezBecerra admitted the charges in the NTA and conceded removability, but stated that he intended to apply for a waiver of removal under former INA § 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). A year after the removal proceedings had been reopened, Sanchez-Becerra 3 filed his application for a § 212(c) waiver on October 31, 2006. The next day, he filed a memorandum supporting his request for a § 212(c) waiver nunc pro tunc.2 His memo argued that the agency error in 2003 in not providing him notice of his original removal hearing and ordering him removed in abstentia prevented him from applying for a § 212(c) waiver of removal back in 2003. Sanchez-Becerra acknowledged that he was statutorily ineligible for a § 212(c) waiver under the relevant statutes as construed by the BIA’s decision in In re Blake, 23 I. & N. Dec. 722 (BIA 2005).3 However, Sanchez-Becerra requested that the IJ allow him to apply for a § 212(c) waiver nunc pro tunc, i.e., as if he was at his original removal hearing in 2003 before the BIA decided Blake in 2005. The government’s position throughout the proceedings was that Sanchez-Becerra was statutorily ineligible for a § 212(c) waiver of removal. At a continued hearing on November 2, 2006, the IJ scheduled a merits hearing for Sanchez-Becerra’s § 212(c) waiver request. While appearing before the IJ, Sanchez-Becerra’s counsel requested a hearing date in May 2007 and accepted a hearing date of May 7, 2007. On May 7, 2007, Sanchez-Becerra’s counsel was not present at the hearing. 2 Nunc pro tunc literally means “now for then” and refers to a court’s use of its inherent power to have an action take retroactive legal effect. Black’s Law Dictionary 1100 (8th ed. 2004). 3 See infra note 7. 4 The IJ stated that Sanchez-Becerra’s counsel had filed an untimely request for another continuance the previous week, which had been denied. The IJ also stated the clerk of the United States District Court in El Paso had called the previous