Court Opinion

ID: 9814661
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 00:00:49.773365+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:42:15.484581
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-60791        Document: 00516879995             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/31/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                     United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                     Fifth Circuit

                                                                                   FILED
                                                                             August 31, 2023
                                      No. 21-60791
                                                                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar
                                                                                   Clerk

   Joao Correa Dos Santos,

                                                                                  Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                Respondent.

                          Petition for Review of an Order of the
                              Board of Immigration Appeals
                                Agency No. A096 174 982

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Petitioner challenges the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his
   motion to reopen removal proceedings and rescind his in absentia removal
   order. The original 2003 Notice to Appear given to Petitioner soon after
   being detained did not schedule his removal hearing. When Petitioner was

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-60791      Document: 00516879995           Page: 2     Date Filed: 08/31/2023

                                     No. 21-60791

   released a few weeks later, he signed a form that gave the address at which
   future notices could be given. The address had one incorrect letter in the
   name of the city but was otherwise completely accurate. Petitioner was
   informed he must provide notice of any change of address. A few weeks later,
   notice of his rescheduled hearing was sent to the slightly misspelled address.
   It was returned with the notations: “Moved, Left No Address,” and
   “Attempted, Not Known.” He did not attend the hearing and was ordered
   removed in absentia.
          We conclude Petitioner forfeited his right to notice by failing to keep
   the immigration court apprised of his correct mailing address or to correct an
   erroneous address. We DENY his petition.
               FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
          Joao Correa Dos Santos, a native and citizen of Brazil, entered the
   United States on January 21, 2003. He was detained by the Immigration and
   Naturalization Service (“INS”) and personally served with a notice to ap-
   pear (“NTA”) alleging he was removable because he was present without
   admission or parole. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). The NTA directed
   Correa Dos Santos to appear before an immigration judge (“IJ”) in Harl-
   ingen, Texas, at a date and time “to be set” and listed his address as the de-
   tention facility’s address. The NTA, which was written in English, also
   stated that Correa Dos Santos was required to provide a mailing address, that
   failure to do so would forfeit his right to written notice of his removal hearing,
   and that failure to attend the hearing could result in removal in absentia. Ac-
   cording to the NTA, Correa Dos Santos was provided oral notice in Spanish
   of the time and place of his hearing and the consequences of failing to appear.
          On February 5, 2003, the immigration court served Correa Dos Santos
   by personal service on his custodial officer, INS, with a Notice of Hearing
   (“NOH”) setting his removal proceedings for 9:00 a.m. on February 18,

                                           2
Case: 21-60791     Document: 00516879995           Page: 3    Date Filed: 08/31/2023

                                    No. 21-60791

   2003. Correa Dos Santos was released from custody on February 5, 2003.
   At that time, he signed a form entitled “Notification Requirement for
   Change of Address,” which was written in both English and Spanish and in-
   dicated his mailing address was “32 Joes Hill Rd., Danburg, CT, 06811.” On
   February 20, 2003, the immigration court mailed a second NOH to that ad-
   dress. That NOH, which reset Correa Dos Santos’s hearing for 9:00 a.m. on
   April 4, 2003, was returned to the immigration court by the United States
   Postal Service marked “Moved, Left No Address.” Correa Dos Santos did
   not appear for the hearing and was ordered removed in absentia. The removal
   order was also mailed to the “Danburg” address and subsequently returned
   to the immigration court with the marking “Attempted Not Known.”
          More than 16 years later, on August 1, 2019, Correa Dos Santos moved
   to reopen his removal proceedings in light of the Supreme Court’s decision
   in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). Correa Dos Santos argued he
   was eligible for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) be-
   cause, under Pereira, his NTA was insufficient to trigger the so-called “stop-
   time” rule and, as a result, he had established more than ten years of contin-
   uous physical presence in the United States. In an affidavit attached to the
   motion, Correa Dos Santos stated that he moved to “Connecticut, CT”
   upon his release from detention and that he provided immigration authorities
   with his brother’s address there. He also claimed that he “never received
   any letter saying [he] would have to appear at a court.”
          The IJ denied the motion to reopen. The IJ first determined that Cor-
   rea Dos Santos’s defective NTA was cured by the first NOH, which set his
   initial hearing for February 18, 2003. Because the immigration court had pro-
   vided the information missing from the NTA, rescission of the removal order
   under Pereira was not warranted. Next, the IJ observed that the record in-
   cluded proof of attempted delivery of the second NOH and found that Correa
   Dos Santos had not shown that he satisfied his obligation to provide the

                                         3
Case: 21-60791      Document: 00516879995           Page: 4   Date Filed: 08/31/2023

                                     No. 21-60791

   immigration court with written notice of his correct mailing address. The IJ
   also explained that Correa Dos Santos’s request for cancellation of removal
   was untimely, that he was not entitled to equitable tolling, and that he had
   not demonstrated prima facie eligibility for relief. Finally, the IJ declined to
   exercise their discretion to sua sponte reopen the case.
          Correa Dos Santos appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals
   (“BIA”). He again argued he was never provided with sufficient notice of
   his hearing and he had therefore accrued the period of continuous physical
   presence required to establish eligibility for cancellation of removal. Correa
   Dos Santos also raised several new arguments, including that INS failed to
   communicate with him in a language he understood, and that the in absentia
   removal proceeding was an unconstitutional “mass-deportation hearing.”
   He further claimed, for the first time, that his brother and his brother’s em-
   ployer had provided INS with Correa Dos Santos’s correct mailing address
   in Danbury, Connecticut, but that immigration officials mistakenly recorded
   the address as being in “Danburg.” Emphasizing that the change of address
   form was not translated into Portuguese, Correa Dos Santos asserted he was
   not responsible for the typographical error in his address because the form
   was under the “complete control” of immigration authorities.
          On September 15, 2021, the BIA dismissed the appeal. First, the BIA
   declined to consider the claims that Correa Dos Santos failed to raise before
   the IJ, including that he was not provided with a Portuguese interpreter and
   that immigration officials were responsible for any error in his recorded ad-
   dress. Observing that the second NOH was returned to the immigration
   court with the stamp “Moved, Left No Address,” the BIA explained that it
   would not rescind an in absentia removal order for lack of notice where, as
   here, the alien apparently failed to update his current address with the immi-
   gration court. Finally, the BIA agreed with the IJ that Correa Dos Santos’s
   motion to reopen was untimely and declined to address the merits of his

                                          4
Case: 21-60791     Document: 00516879995           Page: 5   Date Filed: 08/31/2023

                                    No. 21-60791

   application for cancellation of removal or to exercise sua sponte authority to
   reopen proceedings.
          Correa Dos Santos filed a motion for reconsideration in the BIA on
   the grounds that the agency’s determination that he received valid notice of
   his hearing violated the recent Supreme Court decision in Niz-Chavez v. Gar-
   land, 141 S. Ct. 1474, 1478 (2021), which held that an NTA sufficient to trig-
   ger the stop-time rule must be a “single document containing all the infor-
   mation an individual needs to know about his removal hearing” specified in
   8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1). The Government did not oppose the motion, which
   appears to remain pending at the BIA. Correa Dos Santos also filed a timely
   petition for review of the BIA’s decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).
                                  DISCUSSION
          The primary issue on appeal is whether Correa Dos Santos was enti-
   tled to have the in absentia removal order rescinded and proceedings reo-
   pened due to an improper address used to mail notice of the April 2003 hear-
   ing. There are other issues raised, though, and we will review them as well.
          A motion to reopen removal proceedings is disfavored. Mauricio-Be-
   nitez v. Sessions, 908 F.3d 144, 147 (5th Cir. 2018). This court applies “a
   highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing” those motions.
   Hernandez-Castillo v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 199, 203 (5th Cir. 2017). Thus, the
   BIA’s decision will be affirmed unless it is “capricious, irrational, utterly
   without foundation in the evidence, based on legally erroneous interpreta-
   tions of statutes or regulations, or based on unexplained departures from reg-
   ulations or established policies.” Barrios-Cantarero v. Holder, 772 F.3d 1019,
   1021 (5th Cir. 2014). We review questions of law de novo and findings of fact
   using the substantial-evidence test, under which we do not overturn factual
   findings “unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Gomez-Pala-
   cios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 358 (5th Cir. 2009). Finally, this court focuses

                                         5
Case: 21-60791      Document: 00516879995            Page: 6    Date Filed: 08/31/2023

                                      No. 21-60791

   its review on the BIA’s order but may also review the IJ’s underlying decision
   where it influenced the BIA’s opinion. Hernandez-Castillo, 875 F.3d at 204.
          Generally, we may uphold a BIA decision only on the basis of its stated
   rationale, but “[e]ven if there is a reversible error in the BIA’s analysis, affir-
   mance may be warranted where there is no realistic possibility that, absent
   the errors, the BIA would have reached a different conclusion.” Luna-Garcia
   v. Barr, 932 F.3d 285, 291 (5th Cir. 2019) (quotation marks and citations
   omitted).
          I.      Notice argument
          A Notice to Appear initiates removal proceedings. Johnson v. Guzman
   Chavez, 141 S. Ct. 2271, 2280 (2021). The NTA must specify certain infor-
   mation, including “[t]he time and place at which the proceedings will be
   held.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i). Section 1229(a)(2) applies when the
   Government wishes “to change the alien’s hearing date.” Niz-Chavez v.
   Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474, 1483 (2021). Changing the hearing date requires
   service of a written notice specifying “the new time or place of the proceed-
   ings” and the consequences of failing to attend such proceedings, but such
   written notice is not required if the alien is not in detention and “has failed
   to provide the address required under” Section 1229(a)(1)(F). § 1229(a)(2).
   The statutory requirements are that an alien (1) provide “a written record of
   an address . . . at which the alien may be contacted” with respect to his re-
   moval proceedings, and (2) immediately provide “a written record of any
   change of the alien’s address.” § 1229(a)(1)(F)(i), (ii). Service of a written
   hearing notice by mail is “sufficient if there is proof of attempted delivery to
   the last address provided by the alien in accordance with” Section
   1229(a)(1)(F). § 1229(c).
          Other subsections govern the issuance of an in absentia removal order.
   Under Section 1229a(b)(5)(A), an alien who does not attend a proceeding

                                           6
Case: 21-60791        Document: 00516879995              Page: 7       Date Filed: 08/31/2023

                                          No. 21-60791

   “after written notice required under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a)
   . . . has been provided to the alien,” “shall be ordered removed in absentia”
   if the Government “establishes by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evi-
   dence that the written notice was so provided and that the alien is remova-
   ble.” The Government satisfies the notice requirement if the written notice
   is “provided at the most recent address provided under section
   1229(a)(1)(F).” § 1229a(b)(5)(A). However, “[n]o written notice shall be
   required . . . if the alien has failed to provide the address required under sec-
   tion 1229(a)(1)(F).” § 1229a(b)(5)(B).
           In moving to have his in absentia removal order rescinded, Correa Dos
   Santos relied on a statutory subsection allowing rescission “if the alien
   demonstrates that the alien did not receive notice in accordance with para-
   graph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a).” § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). Nonetheless, if an
   alien fails to provide a correct mailing address, including failure to correct an
   erroneous address, “he [is] not entitled to actual notice of his removal hear-
   ing.” Mauricio-Benitez, 908 F.3d at 149.
           While Correa Dos Santos’s appeal was before the BIA, the Supreme
   Court issued an opinion holding that before an NTA could invoke the stop-
   time rule1 for cancellation of removal, all necessary information, including
   the time and place of the hearing, must be in one document. Niz-Chavez, 141
   S. Ct. at 1480–86. The necessary details include the time and place of the
   removal hearing. Id. at 1484. Shortly thereafter, we held this single-docu-
   ment rule also applied in the in absentia context, such that an NTA containing
   all the information specified under Section 1229(a)(1) is required to sustain

           1
              The stop-time rule provides that an alien’s period of continuous, lawful presence
   in the United States ends when the person is served with a proper NTA. Niz-Chavez, 141
   S. Ct. at 1479 (citing § 1229b(d)(1)).

                                                7
Case: 21-60791      Document: 00516879995           Page: 8    Date Filed: 08/31/2023

                                     No. 21-60791

   an in absentia removal order. Rodriguez v. Garland, 15 F.4th 351, 355 (5th Cir.
   2021), reh’g denied, 31 F.4th 935 (5th Cir. 2022).
          On appeal, Correa Dos Santos argues Rodriguez compels rescinding
   the in absentia order of removal because the defective NTA did not stop-time
   rule. The Government responds that one of our recent opinions distinguish-
   ing Rodriguez forecloses Correa Dos Santos’s argument. See Nivelo Cardenas
   v. Garland, 70 F.4th 232 (5th Cir. 2023). We agree.
          Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, sending notice “by mail
   under this section shall be sufficient if there is proof of attempted delivery to
   the last address provided by the alien in accordance with subsection
   (a)(1)(F).” § 1229(c). There are different contexts in which the sufficiency
   of notice of a removal hearing can arise. Since Niz-Chavez, we have ad-
   dressed several variations: Spagnol-Bastos v. Garland, 19 F.4th 802 (5th Cir.
   2021); Gudiel-Villatoro v. Garland, 40 F.4th 247 (5th Cir. 2022); and Platero-
   Rosales v. Garland, 55 F.4th 974 (5th Cir. 2022). We recently reaffirmed
   these holdings that an alien’s failure to provide a viable address forfeits his
   right to written notice of a removal hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(B).
   Nivelo Cardenas, 70 F.4th at 241.
          In Nivelo Cardenas, we adopted the reasoning in Chief Judge Rich-
   man’s concurring opinion in Platero-Rosales. Id. She explained that “provid-
   ing the alien with a ‘notice to appear’ that must necessarily include the time
   and place of a removal hearing, is not a prerequisite to the applicability of §
   1229a(b)(5)(B).” Platero-Rosales, 55 F.4th at 979 (Richman, C.J., concur-
   ring). After analyzing the relevant statutory provisions, she concluded, “the
   statutes provide that the consequence of failing to provide an address is that
   the alien can be removed in absentia.” Id. at 980. She addressed the argu-
   ment that Rodriguez conflicts with Spagnol-Bastos and Gudiel-Villatoro. Id. at

                                          8
Case: 21-60791      Document: 00516879995          Page: 9   Date Filed: 08/31/2023

                                    No. 21-60791

   980–81. We agree that Rodriguez is not controlling if the alien provides no
   address, or fails to update or to correct an erroneous address:
          The Rodriguez decision is not precedential with regard to the
          issue before our court because the record in Rodriguez reflects
          that the [BIA] did not rest its decision on, or even discuss, 8
          U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(B), which says that “[n]o written notice
          shall be required under subparagraph (A) if the alien has failed
          to provide the address required under section 1229(a)(1)(F) of
          this title.” . . . By contrast, our court’s decisions in Spagnol-
          Bastos v. Garland and Gudiel-Villatoro v. Garland do squarely
          address the issue we confront today. Accordingly, they are
          binding precedent, and they govern under our rule of orderli-
          ness.
   Id. (footnotes omitted).
          In sum, Nivelo Cardenas held an alien forfeits notice when he fails to
   provide an address, update an old address, or correct an erroneous address.
   Nivelo Cardenas, 70 F.4th at 243. We reiterated that the alien bears the bur-
   den to correct any typographical errors in the address — even if a govern-
   mental official erred in recording the address — particularly where, as in this
   case and Nivelo Cardenas, the error is set forth in a Form I-830, “Notice to
   EOIR: Alien Address” that is filed with the immigration court by the Depart-
   ment of Homeland Security. See id. at 235–36, 243–44. We also distin-
   guished Rodriguez v. Garland, where the applicability of 8 U.S.C. §
   1229a(b)(5)(B) was neither briefed by the parties nor addressed in the panel’s
   opinion. See id. at 242–43.
          Therefore, just as we determined in Nivelo Cardenas, Correa Dos San-
   tos forfeited his right to notice by failing to correct the erroneous address
   listed in his “Notification Requirement for Change of Address” and Form I-
   830.

                                         9
Case: 21-60791     Document: 00516879995            Page: 10    Date Filed: 08/31/2023

                                     No. 21-60791

          II.    Additional arguments as to why the BIA erred
          In addition to the notice issues, Correa Dos Santos also argues that the
   BIA erred in failing to evaluate various “constitutional defects” in his case,
   including his allegations that INS failed to provide a Portuguese interpreter
   and that his removal hearing was improperly conducted.
          This court has jurisdiction to review “constitutional claims or ques-
   tions of law” raised in a petition for review. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). An
   alien must, however, exhaust all administrative remedies that are available as
   of right before this court may review a final order. § 1252(d)(1); see also San-
   tos-Zacaria v. Garland, 143 S. Ct. 1103, 1116 (2023) (“[Section] 1252(d)(1)’s
   exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional[;] it is subject to waiver and for-
   feiture.”). The BIA is not required to consider an issue raised for the first
   time on appeal. See Matter of Jimenez-Santillano, 21 I. & N. Dec. 567, 570 n.2
   (B.I.A. 1996). Therefore, and the BIA does not err by failing to consider an
   issue that was not presented to the IJ. See Cantarero-Lagos v. Barr, 924 F.3d
   145, 151–52 (5th Cir. 2019).
          Here, as the BIA correctly determined, Correa Dos Santos failed to
   present his constitutional claims to the IJ. He accordingly has failed to ex-
   haust those claims and, thus, he has forfeited them. See § 1252(d)(1); Can-
   tarero-Lagos, 924 F.3d at 151–53; Santos-Zacaria, 143 S. Ct. at 1116. This por-
   tion of Correa Dos Santos’s petition is denied.
          The petition for review is DENIED.

                                          10