Opinion ID: 612918
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: OSCs

Text: Mr. and Mrs. Patel also claim that they never received their OSCs. [U]nder section 242B(a)(1) of the Act, service of the Order to Show Cause must be given in person to the alien. Id. at 32. But [i]f personal service is not practicable, such notice must be given by certified mail [5] to the alien or to his counsel of record, if any, with the requirement that the certified mail receipt be signed by the respondent or a responsible person at the respondent's address to accomplish personal service. Id. Here, Mr. and Mrs. Patel have not asserted that the OSCs should have been personally served on them. And, the record reflects that the INS sent the OSCs to Mr. and Mrs. Patel in accordance with Grijalva. Even assuming that Mr. Patel did not receive the OSC dated October 8, 1993, that was sent via certified mail, return receipt requested, on November 2, 1993, to the address Mr. Patel provided in his asylum application  the New York address  the record reflects that the INS properly sent OSCs to both Mr. and Mrs. Patel on August 18, 1995, via certified mail, return receipt requested, to the address that they provided in their applications for employment authorization  the St. Louis address. At the time, this address was the last address that INS had on file for Mr. and Mrs. Patel. In accordance with Grijalva, the record reflects that the return receipt for Mr. Patel's OSC was signed by A. Patel at that address on August 30, 1995. Likewise, the record reflects that the return receipt for Mrs. Patel's OSC was signed by M. Patel on September 9, 1995. Although Mr. and Mrs. Patel averred that they never received the OSCs dated August 18, 1995, they have presented no evidence that the signatures appearing on the return receipts were not their signatures or that there was no other responsible person living at [their] address at the time. Adeyemo v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 558, 561 (7th Cir.2004) (observing that petitioner presented evidence that the signature was neither his nor his ex-wife's and that there was no other responsible person living at his address at the time). As a result, we conclude that the government satisfied its burden of showing delivery.