Court Opinion

ID: 9394689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-16 13:00:50.032928+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:01.975948
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12647   Document: 17-1      Date Filed: 05/16/2023    Page: 1 of 9

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                                No. 22-12647
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       SAMUEL ANTONIO MURILLO-JUAREZ,
                                                               Petitioner,
       versus
       U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

                                                              Respondent.

                         ____________________

                   Petition for Review of a Decision of the
                        Board of Immigration Appeals
                          Agency No. A098-118-913
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12647         Document: 17-1        Date Filed: 05/16/2023         Page: 2 of 9

       2                          Opinion of the Court                      22-12647

       Before WILSON, ANDERSON, and ED CARNES, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Samuel Antonio Murillo-Juarez petitions for review of the
       Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order affirming the Immigra-
       tion Judge’s (IJ) denial of his motion to reopen and rescind an in
       absentia order of removal, based on his alleged lack of notice of his
       removal hearing. He contends that the IJ and BIA failed to consider
       significant evidence and asks us to reverse the BIA’s decision deny-
       ing his motion to reopen. He argues that the totality of the evi-
       dence rebuts the presumption of delivery of the notice of hearing.
                                            I.
              Murillo-Juarez, 1 a native and citizen of Honduras, entered
       the United States without inspection on or about May 15, 2004. He
       told Border Patrol agents that he was with his older sister Carla
       Patricia Murillo-Juarez, and the two were traveling to live with
       family in Miami. Carla provided the agents with a specific address

       1 For the first time on appeal to the BIA, Murillo-Juarez asserted that his real
       name was “Samuel Antonio Alvarado Casco” and that the NTA “arguably
       does not apply to him” because it listed the wrong name and as a result was
       “factually incorrect.” He did not make that argument to the IJ. And no other
       documents or forms in the record — besides his submissions to the BIA —
       contain that name. His brief to this Court refers to him as “Samuel Murillo-
       Juarez” or “Petitioner.” He has abandoned any argument that the NTA did
       not apply to him because it did not contain the correct name.
USCA11 Case: 22-12647     Document: 17-1      Date Filed: 05/16/2023    Page: 3 of 9

       22-12647               Opinion of the Court                        3

       the two were headed to: 740 Northeast 86th Street, Miami, Florida
       22128.
               That same day, a Border Patrol agent personally served Mu-
       rillo-Juarez with a notice to appear (NTA), which charged him as
       removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) for being present in the
       United States without being admitted or paroled. The NTA or-
       dered him to appear before an IJ on July 28, 2004, at 8:30 a.m. and
       provided the address of the immigration court in Miami. It also
       stated that Murillo-Juarez was required to provide his mailing ad-
       dress, and he listed 740 Northeast 86th Street, Miami, Florida as his
       current address. The NTA specified that if his mailing address
       changed, Murillo-Juarez was required to submit written notice of
       that change. Murillo-Juarez signed the NTA and put his fingerprint
       on it.
              On June 21, 2004, a notice of hearing was mailed to Murillo-
       Juarez at the Miami address listed on his NTA. This notice, like the
       NTA, stated that the hearing would take place on July 28, 2004, at
       8:30 a.m., at the same address for the immigration court listed on
       the NTA. Murillo-Juarez did not appear at his removal hearing and
       the immigration judge ordered him removed in absentia based on
       the charge contained in the NTA.
              Fourteen years later, in 2018, Murillo-Juarez, still in the
       United States, moved to reopen his removal proceedings. He al-
       leged that Carla Patricia Murillo-Juarez was not his sister, he never
       lived in Miami, never provided a Miami address, and didn’t know
       he had a removal hearing because he never received a notice of
USCA11 Case: 22-12647         Document: 17-1         Date Filed: 05/16/2023          Page: 4 of 9

       4                          Opinion of the Court                        22-12647

       hearing. He also attached a copy of an approved I-130 petition for
       alien relative but made no arguments regarding it. 2
              The IJ concluded that Murillo-Juarez had not established
       good cause to reopen and denied his motion. The IJ found that in
       2004 Murillo-Juarez had claimed to Border Patrol that he was ac-
       companying his sister and the pair were released from custody as a
       family unit. The IJ also found that his purported sister had pro-
       vided the Miami, Florida address, which was Murillo-Juarez’s last
       known address, and that the hearing notice was sent there. 3
               Murillo-Juarez appealed the denial of his motion to reopen
       to the BIA. There, he contended for the first time that he was en-
       titled to asylum and withholding of removal because the country
       conditions had “changed dramatically” in Honduras, and that these
       changed conditions were relevant because he was now married to
       a U.S. citizen and had a child who was also a U.S. citizen. He also
       mentioned “an approved I-130 petition due to his marriage to a

       2 The I-130 petition designated the notice type as “Husband or wife of U.S.
       Citizen” and listed “Samuel Antonio Alvarado Casco” as the beneficiary. The
       approval form states that “[t]he approval of this visa petition does not in itself
       grant any immigration status and does not guarantee that the alien beneficiary
       will subsequently be found eligible for a visa for admission to the Unites States,
       or an extension, change, or adjustment of status.”
       3 The record contains a change of address form signed by Murillo-Juarez. But
       that form includes only the “[o]ld [a]ddress” — the Miami one. The space to
       fill in a new address was left blank, as was the date of the address change. As
       a result, Murillo-Juarez never provided notice of a different address.
USCA11 Case: 22-12647      Document: 17-1       Date Filed: 05/16/2023     Page: 5 of 9

       22-12647                Opinion of the Court                          5

       United States citizen,” asserting in passing that the petition demon-
       strated prima facie eligibility for relief. As for notice of his removal
       hearing, Murillo-Juarez again asserted that he was not traveling
       with his alleged sister when he entered the United States and did
       not live with her in Miami, so when the notice of hearing was sent
       to her address, he never received it.
              The BIA dismissed Murillo-Juarez’s appeal. The BIA found
       no clear error in the IJ’s findings that the notice of hearing was sent
       to Murillo-Juarez’s last known address and that Murillo-Juarez’s
       statement claiming non-receipt was insufficient to rebut the pre-
       sumption of proper notice. It noted that Murillo-Juarez had been
       personally served with an NTA and that he failed to present suffi-
       cient evidence to suggest that NTA did not pertain to him or that
       further fact-finding on that issue was necessary.
               The BIA also concluded that because Murillo-Juarez had not
       argued to the IJ that the country conditions in Honduras had
       changed, the IJ did not err by not sua sponte addressing that issue.
       It determined that, in any event, Murillo-Juarez had submitted no
       evidence of changed country conditions that would establish any
       entitlement to reopening, asylum, or withholding of removal.
              The BIA determined that Murillo-Juarez had not established
       that he was entitled to reopening based on an approved I-130 peti-
       tion. He had not asked the IJ for reopening based on the form and
       so the IJ did not err by not addressing it. Finally, the BIA noted that
       Murillo-Juarez’s motion to reopen was untimely and there were no
       exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of its discretion
USCA11 Case: 22-12647     Document: 17-1        Date Filed: 05/16/2023   Page: 6 of 9

       6                      Opinion of the Court                 22-12647

       to reopen sua sponte his proceedings. Murillo-Juarez petitioned
       our Court for review of the BIA’s decision.
                                       II.
              We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent
       that the BIA expressly adopts the IJ’s decision. Kazemzadeh v. U.S.
       Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1350 (11th Cir. 2009). Where the BIA
       agrees with the IJ’s reasoning, we will also review the IJ’s decision
       to that extent. Id. But because the BIA did not expressly adopt the
       IJ’s decision or agree with the IJ’s reasoning, we review only the
       BIA’s decision. See id.
              We review the denial of a motion to reopen and rescind an
       immigration proceeding for an abuse of discretion. Jiang v. U.S.
       Att’y Gen., 568 F.3d 1252, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009). An abuse of dis-
       cretion occurs where the BIA exercised its discretion arbitrarily or
       capriciously. Id. We review de novo the BIA’s legal determina-
       tions and interpretations of law. Castillo-Arias v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
       446 F.3d 1190, 1195 (11th Cir. 2006).
                                         III.
              8 U.S.C. § 1229 governs the initiation of removal proceed-
       ings against an alien who has been charged as removable for being
       present in the United States without being admitted or paroled.
       See also 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) (governing inadmissibility). An
       alien will be removed in absentia if he fails to attend the removal
       hearing after being issued “written notice required under para-
       graph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a),” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A), and
USCA11 Case: 22-12647      Document: 17-1     Date Filed: 05/16/2023     Page: 7 of 9

       22-12647               Opinion of the Court                         7

       the government shows by “clear and convincing evidence” that the
       alien is “deportable,” id. § 1229a(c)(3)(A). Section 1229(a)(1) re-
       quires the alien to be issued a written notice to appear specifying,
       among other things, the time and place of his removal hearing and
       the consequences for failing to attend it. Id. § 1229(a)(1). If the
       time and place of the hearing are changed or postponed,
       § 1229(a)(2) requires the alien to be issued written notice specifying
       the new time and place and the consequences for failing to appear.
       Id. § 1229(a)(2).
               The notice requirements under paragraphs (1) or (2) provide
       alternatives — only one type of notice is required. See Drago-
       mirescu v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 44 F.4th 1351, 1354–55 (11th Cir. 2022).
       If the hearing is never changed or postponed, all that is required is
       an NTA complying with § 1229(a)(1). See Dacostagomez-Aguilar
       v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 40 F.4th 1312, 1317 (11th Cir. 2022). “The gov-
       ernment must show that one notice or the other was provided —
       not both — to support an in absentia removal order.” Id.
               If the alien was issued the required NTA and failed to appear
       at his removal hearing, the IJ may remove him in absentia. 8 U.S.C.
       § 1229a(b)(5)(A). An in absentia removal order may be rescinded
       upon a motion to reopen either (i) filed within 180 days, “if the al-
       ien shows that the failure to appear was because of exceptional cir-
       cumstances” or (ii) “filed at any time if the alien demonstrates that
       the alien did not receive notice in accordance with paragraph (1) or
       (2) of section 1229(a).” Id. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i)-(ii).
USCA11 Case: 22-12647         Document: 17-1         Date Filed: 05/16/2023         Page: 8 of 9

       8                          Opinion of the Court                       22-12647

              Murillo-Juarez argues that he did not receive notice under 8
       U.S.C. § 1229(a) because, he claims, he never received the notice of
       hearing sent to the Miami address. But whether Murillo-Juarez re-
       ceived the notice of hearing is irrelevant. That’s because Murillo-
       Juarez was personally served with an NTA containing the same in-
       formation as the notice of hearing — a fact he does not dispute.
       That NTA complied with § 1229(a)(1): it provided the time, date,
       and location of his hearing, as well as the consequences for failing
       to attend it. And Murillo-Juarez signed and put his fingerprint on
       the NTA. 4
               “The notice required to render an in absentia removal lawful
       is the notice for the particular hearing that was missed.” Da-
       costagomez-Aguilar, 40 F.4th at 1314. Here, the NTA Murillo-Jua-
       rez received and signed provided notice of the particular hearing
       he missed. That hearing was never changed or postponed, and the
       later issued notice of hearing only reiterated the information con-
       tained in the NTA. Because the government must show “that one

       4 Murillo-Juarez’s argument about the notice of hearing fails for another rea-
       son. Non-citizens have an affirmative duty to provide written notification of
       a change in address. 8 U.S.C. § 1305(a). If an alien fails to update his address,
       no notice is required. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(B). Because Murillo-Juarez never
       provided an updated address, his alleged failure to receive the notice of hear-
       ing does not mean he was deprived of any notice required under § 1229(a).
       See Dragomirescu, 44 F.4th at 1356–57 (“[A]n alien can be removed in absentia
       without notice of his removal hearing’s time and place if, after receiving an
       initial notice to appear advising him to keep his address up-to-date, the alien
       moves and fails to inform DHS of his new address.”).
USCA11 Case: 22-12647         Document: 17-1         Date Filed: 05/16/2023          Page: 9 of 9

       22-12647                   Opinion of the Court                                 9

       notice or the other was provided — not both — to support an in
       absentia removal order,” id. at 1317, it has shown that Murillo-Jua-
       rez was issued all of the notice required under § 1229(a). As a result,
       the BIA did not err in affirming the IJ’s order finding that Murillo-
       Juarez received notice of his removal hearing, making his petition
       untimely.5 See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i)–(ii).
             Murillo-Juarez entered this country unlawfully 19 years
       ago. He has shown no ground for staying any longer.
               PETITION DENIED.

       5 By failing to adequately argue these issues in his brief to this Court, Murillo-
       Juarez has abandoned any challenges to: the BIA’s refusal to exercise its sua
       sponte authority to reopen his removal proceedings; and its rejection of his
       request for asylum and withholding of removal based on changed country
       conditions. See Kazemzadeh, 577 F.3d at 1341 (explaining that, when a peti-
       tioner “makes only a passing reference in his brief” to an argument, that argu-
       ment is treated as abandoned).
       Although Murillo-Juarez’s brief references the I-130 application and the
       changed country conditions being “brushed” off by the BIA, he makes no sub-
       stantive arguments as to how BIA abused its discretion or acted arbitrarily or
       capriciously in its findings on these issues, which also were not clearly raised
       before the IJ. See Singh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 561 F.3d 1275, 1278 (11th Cir. 2009)
       (noting that a simple statement “that an issue exists, without further argument
       or discussion, constitutes abandonment of that issue and precludes [this
       Court’s] considering the issue on appeal”). Instead, the only arguments he
       properly preserved for appeal concern his alleged lack of notice for the re-
       moval hearings, which fail.