Court Opinion

ID: 9919438
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-18 16:01:21.737492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:58.941684
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                           For the Eighth Circuit
                       ___________________________

                               No. 23-1634
                       ___________________________

     Elida De Los Angeles Franco-Moreno; Robin Wilfredo Rivera-Franco,

                           lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners,

                                          v.

           Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States,

                          lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent.
                                   ____________

                     Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals
                                  ____________

                          Submitted: January 12, 2024
                            Filed: January 18, 2024
                                 [Unpublished]
                                ____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

      This is the second time Salvadoran citizens Elida De Los Angeles
Franco-Moreno and her child, Robin Wilfredo Rivera-Franco, are before the court.
See Franco-Moreno v. Garland, 840 F. App’x 57 (8th Cir. 2021) (Franco-Moreno
I). In Franco-Moreno I, petitioners sought review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals, upholding an immigration judge’s decision denying their
motion to reopen removal proceedings and rescind an order of removal entered in
absentia. The Board determined that petitioners failed to overcome the presumption
of service of a Notice of Hearing mailed to the temporary mailing address that
petitioners provided the agency upon entry to the United States. A panel of this court
concluded that the Board abused its discretion by applying a heightened evidentiary
standard and disregarding record evidence. See id. at 58.

       On remand, the Board again determined that petitioners had failed to overcome
the presumption that the notice was properly delivered. The record shows that the
Board applied the correct presumption of delivery, and stated that it had considered
all relevant evidence. The Board explicitly discussed some of the evidence, and
found that the affidavits Franco-Moreno and her sister, Lorena, provided in support
of petitioners’ motion to reopen and rescind were essentially unconvincing. There
was no dispute petitioners were not living at the address provided, and the affidavits
failed to explain how frequently Franco-Moreno or Lorena checked for any mail.
Lorena’s affidavit, moreover, admitted that she did not know who was living at the
address, and the record lacked any information about how many individuals resided
at the address or had access to the mail there. On this record, the Board gave a
rational explanation for its decision. The Board did not depart from its established
policies without explanation, rely on impermissible factors or legal error, or ignore
or distort record evidence. See Diaz v. Lynch, 824 F.3d 758, 760 (8th Cir. 2016).

      Accordingly, we deny the petition. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                     ______________________________

                                         -2-