Court Opinion

ID: 9939715
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-12 16:02:28.874731+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:52.003615
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                           For the Eighth Circuit
                       ___________________________

                               No. 23-2540
                       ___________________________

                           Gabriela Ansurez-Chavez

                                            Petitioner

                                       v.

           Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States

                                       Respondent
                                ____________

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

                         Submitted: February 7, 2024
                          Filed: February 12, 2024
                               [Unpublished]
                               ____________

Before SHEPHERD, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Gabriela Ansurez-Chavez missed her immigration hearing and was ordered
removed in absentia in 2003. Although she challenges the decision not to reopen
the case 18 years later, we deny the petition for review.
       Despite her arguments to the contrary, the Board did not abuse its discretion
in concluding that she received notice of her hearing back in 2003. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii); Diaz v. Lynch, 824 F.3d 758, 760 (8th Cir. 2016) (per curiam)
(reviewing the denial of a motion to reopen under an abuse-of-discretion standard).
The agency sent a notice to appear by certified mail and follow-up notices by regular
mail to the address she provided. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1) (authorizing service by
mail). An “unsupported denial of receipt” does not rebut the presumption that they
were delivered. Patel v. Holder, 652 F.3d 962, 969 (8th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted)
(addressing certified mail); see also Diaz, 824 F.3d at 760 (addressing regular mail);
8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(B) (stating that an alien who fails to provide a current
address is not entitled to written notice).

      As for the other issues she raises, they are harmless, see Aguilar v. Garland,
60 F.4th 401, 407 (8th Cir. 2023); waived, see Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d
751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004); unexhausted, see Essel v. Garland, 89 F.4th 686, 691 (8th
Cir. 2023); or unreviewable, see Vue v. Barr, 953 F.3d 1054, 1057–58 (8th Cir.
2020). We accordingly deny the petition for review. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                       ______________________________

                                         -2-