Court Opinion

ID: 9955301
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 00:00:45.986606+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:28.683511
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60437            Document: 74-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/27/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________
                                                                                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                            Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 23-60437
                                  Summary Calendar
                                                                                          FILED
                                                                                    March 27, 2024
                                  ____________
                                                                                     Lyle W. Cayce
Elsa Diaz-Pajardo,                                                                        Clerk

                                                                              Petitioner,

                                          versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                             Respondent.
                   ______________________________

                      Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals
                            Agency No. A098 488 759
                   ______________________________

Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Proceeding pro se, Elsa Diaz-Pajardo, a native and citizen of
Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA)
order affirming the denial of her motion to reopen and to rescind her in
absentia order of removal. See, e.g., Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 400 (5th

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60437          Document: 74-1       Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/27/2024

                                  No. 23-60437

Cir. 2021) (“We construe the filings of pro se litigants liberally.”). (The
motion to reopen was filed more than 15 years after the 2004 removal order.)
       Diaz contends she was not notified properly of her removal hearing.
Our court reviews denial of a motion to reopen under a “highly deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard”. Mauricio-Benitez v. Sessions, 908 F.3d 144,
147 (5th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).
       An in absentia removal order may be rescinded if an alien shows: she
did not receive notice of the hearing in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a);
and the failure to appear was through no fault her own.               8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii).    Section 1229(a) provides that an alien subject to
removal proceedings is entitled to written notice specifying, inter alia, the
time and place of the removal proceedings and the consequences for failing
to appear. 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(G). An alien, however, is not entitled to
written notice of her removal hearing if she fails to provide an address where
she can be notified after being informed of her obligation to do so. E.g., Nivelo
Cardenas v. Garland, 70 F.4th 232, 243 (5th Cir. 2023).
       It is undisputed that Diaz never provided an address where she could
be notified, despite being advised of her obligation to do so. She, therefore,
forfeited her right to notice. See id.
       DENIED.

                                         2