Case: 19-60799 Document: 00515858403 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 19-60799 FILED May 12, 2021 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Juan Evelio Ulloa-Guzman, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A074 397 493 Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Juan Evelio Ulloa-Guzman petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying reconsideration of its order vacating the grant of a motion to reopen his 1996 deportation proceeding. He sought reopening of his in absentia deportation order based on a claim that * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 19-60799 Document: 00515858403 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/12/2021 No. 19-60799 he did not receive notice of the hearing due to an error in his listed address. We review the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Lowe v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 713, 715 (5th Cir. 2017). The BIA only abuses its discretion when its decision is “capricious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In his petition for review, Ulloa-Guzman first argues that the BIA erred in concluding that the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction to grant his motion to reopen due to the reinstatement bar of 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). Because the BIA found in the alternative that Ulloa-Guzman was not entitled to reopening based on his failure to correct the address listed on the order to show cause, we decline to address this issue. Ulloa-Guzman also argues that the BIA abused its discretion by denying reconsideration based on its determination that he had an obligation to correct the address shown on his order to show cause, which had been personally served on him. In Mauricio-Benitez v. Sessions, 908 F.3d 144, 148 (5th Cir. 2018), we rejected the argument that an alien is required only to alert the immigration court of a change in his address. Regardless of the source of the error in his listed address, we held that the alien – who had notice of the error upon receipt of his notice to appear – was obligated to correct the error and that the failure to receive notice of the hearing in such circumstances was not grounds to reopen or to rescind an in absentia removal order. Id. at 148-49. Because Ulloa-Guzman also had notice of the error in his listed address, but he failed to take any steps to correct it, his failure to receive notice of his deportation hearing is not grounds to reopen or rescind his in …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals