Court Opinion

ID: 9401417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-13 00:01:24.949703+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:52.644588
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60666            Document: 00516783498             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/12/2023

                 United States Court of Appeals
                      for the Fifth Circuit
                                         ____________
                                                                                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                            Fifth Circuit
                                          No. 22-60666
                                        Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                        ____________                                  June 12, 2023
                                                                                     Lyle W. Cayce
   Anna Grullon-Garcia,                                                                   Clerk

                                                                                     Petitioner,

                                                versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                   Respondent.
                         ______________________________

                            Petition for Review of an Order of the
                                Board of Immigration Appeals
                                  Agency No. A078 311 778
                         ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
             Anna Grullon-Garcia, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic,
   petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
   dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of her
   motion to reopen and rescind an in absentia removal order based on lack of
   notice.

             _____________________
             *
                 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60666      Document: 00516783498          Page: 2    Date Filed: 06/12/2023

                                    No. 22-60666

          Grullon-Garcia argues that she did not receive proper written notice
   of her removal hearing given that her notice to appear (NTA) did not specify
   a time and date for her hearing. She also challenges the BIA’s conclusion
   that she forfeited the right to written notice of her removal hearing by failing
   to provide a valid address where the immigration court could mail the notice.
          This court reviews the BIA’s decision and considers the IJ’s decision
   only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d
   511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for
   substantial evidence, and its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. Id. The
   substantial evidence test “requires only that the BIA’s decision be supported
   by record evidence and be substantially reasonable.” Omagah v. Ashcroft, 288
   F.3d 254, 258 (5th Cir. 2002). This court will not reverse the BIA’s factual
   findings unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.            Chen v.
   Gonzalez, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). “The applicant has the burden
   of showing that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder
   could reach a contrary conclusion.” Id.
          The denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed “under a highly
   deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Barrios-Cantarero v. Holder, 772
   F.3d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted). Accordingly, this court will affirm the BIA’s decision unless it is
   “capricious, irrational, utterly without foundation in the evidence, based on
   legally erroneous interpretations of statutes or regulations, or based on
   unexplained departures from regulations or established policies.” Id.
          The BIA relied on Spagnol-Bastos v. Garland, 19 F.4th 802 (5th Cir.
   2021), and found that Grullon-Garcia had forfeited the right to written notice
   of her removal hearing by failing to provide a valid address where notice could
   be sent. Grullon-Garcia does not address Spagnol-Bastos in her brief. Instead,
   she relies on Rodriguez v. Garland, 15 F.4th 351 (5th Cir. 2021), and argues

                                              2
Case: 22-60666      Document: 00516783498          Page: 3    Date Filed: 06/12/2023

                                    No. 22-60666

   that because her NTA failed to specify the date and time of her removal
   hearing, she could not be removed in absentia. But as this court explained in
   Spagnol-Bastos, Rodriguez does not apply where, as in Grullon-Garcia’s case,
   the alien fails to provide the immigration court with a valid mailing address
   at which to receive notice. Spagnol-Bastos, 19 F.4th at 808 n.2.
          Though Grullon-Garcia claims that she provided the immigration
   court with her contact information, the only evidence she presented to
   support her claim is a vague assertion in her affidavit that “after [she] was
   released from detention [she] did a Change of Address with the court.” Her
   affidavit does not specify when she attempted to notify the immigration court
   of her new address or claim that she provided this information by filing Form
   EOIR-33 as the NTA instructed. Further, as the BIA noted, Grullon-
   Garcia’s affidavit contains no “specific information regarding when and
   where she was residing” after she was released from immigration custody.
          The BIA reasonably concluded that Grullon-Garcia’s affidavit was
   insufficient to establish that she did not receive notice of her removal hearing
   or show that she had provided the immigration court with an address at which
   she could receive notice as 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(F)(i) requires.
   See Mauricio-Benitez v. Sessions, 908 F.3d 144, 150-51 (5th Cir. 2018). The
   BIA also reasonably relied on Spagnol-Bastos in determining that Grullon-
   Garcia forfeited her right to written notice and did not act, arbitrarily,
   capriciously, or irrationally in denying her motion to reopen and rescind her
   in absentia removal order for lack of notice. See Barrios-Cantarero v. Holder,
   772 F.3d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 2014).
          The petition for review is DENIED.

                                              3