NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 18a0355n.06 No. 18-3087 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT LEONARDO NOE MORALES-GONZALEZ; ) FILED SHERLYN SACAY MORALES-DE LEON, ) Jul 17, 2018 ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk Petitioners, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW v. ) FROM THE UNITED STATES ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney ) APPEALS General, ) ) Respondent. ) Before: SUTTON, McKEAGUE, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges. KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Leonardo Morales-Gonzalez and his daughter Sherlyn Morales-De Leon argue that the Board of Immigration Appeals erred when it affirmed an immigration judge’s decision denying their motion to reopen their removal proceedings. We reject their arguments and deny their petition for review. I. In November 2016, Border Patrol agents arrested Morales-Gonzalez and Morales-De Leon—citizens of Guatemala—as they crossed the border from Mexico into the United States. The next day, an agent gave Morales-Gonzalez two forms, one for him and one for his daughter, who was then three years old. Those forms (entitled “Notice to Appear”) explained that he and his daughter were required to attend a hearing with an immigration judge, that the immigration No. 18-3087 Morales-Gonzalez, et al. v. Sessions court would send a notice of the time and place of the hearing to their address, and that he was required to tell the court if they changed their address. The forms also noted that the judge could order them removed if they failed to show up for their hearing. Morales-Gonzalez signed each form twice: once to “request an immediate hearing” and again to acknowledge that he had been given the form in person by an agent who had explained—in Spanish—“the consequences of failure to appear” for the hearing. Morales-Gonzalez told an immigration officer that, once he and his daughter were released, their address would be 300 Dixie Drive, Cleveland, Tennessee. The government then released Morales-Gonzalez and Morales-De Leon and the immigration officer mailed a letter to their address. The letter recited that their hearing would be held at an immigration court in Memphis, Tennessee and that Morales-Gonzalez must “report any changes in [their] address” to that court. A month later, the immigration court sent another letter— also to the address on Dixie Drive—that stated the date and time of their hearing. That letter was returned to the court as undeliverable. Morales-Gonzalez and his daughter thereafter failed to appear for their hearing, and the immigration judge ordered them removed from the United States. Morales-Gonzalez and Morales-De Leon later filed a motion to reopen their removal proceedings. The immigration judge denied the motion, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed without a written opinion. This petition for review followed. II. The Board affirmed the immigration judge without a written opinion, so we review the judge’s decision directly for an abuse of discretion. See Denko v. I.N.S., 351 F.3d 717, 723 (6th Cir. 2003). -2- No. 18-3087 Morales-Gonzalez, et al. v. Sessions A. Morales-Gonzalez and Morales-De Leon argue that the immigration judge should have reopened ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals