Case: 18-12074 Date Filed: 11/21/2019 Page: 1 of 12 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-12074 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A075-398-105 DANIEL BILEK, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (November 21, 2019) Before MARTIN, JORDAN, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 18-12074 Date Filed: 11/21/2019 Page: 2 of 12 Daniel Bilek petitions this Court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his motion to reopen sua sponte his removal proceedings. He argues that because of a defective order to show cause, the BIA and the Immigration Judge lacked jurisdiction over the removal proceedings. He also argues that because of the defective order and subsequent hearing in his absence, he was denied due process of law. Finally, he argues that the Immigration Judge and BIA committed legal errors in reviewing his motion to reopen sua sponte—first, by imposing improper time limits and, second, by incorrectly interpreting their authority to reopen. For the reasons below, we deny his claim that the BIA and the Immigration Judge lacked jurisdiction over the removal proceedings, and we dismiss the remaining claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. I Mr. Bilek, a native and citizen of the Czech Republic, entered the United States as a non-immigrant visitor on or about January 20, 1997. On February 4, 1997, the Immigration and Naturalization Service served him with an order to show cause and notice of a hearing, alleging that he was employed for wages without authorization and subject to deportation. The order to show cause did not include a date, time, or location for a hearing, but stated that a later notice would “be mailed to the address [Mr. Bilek] provided.” 2 Case: 18-12074 Date Filed: 11/21/2019 Page: 3 of 12 It required Mr. Bilek to “provide immediately in writing an address (and telephone number, if any) where [he] can be contacted” and “to provide written notice within five (5) days, of any change in [his] address or telephone number to the office of the Immigration Judge listed in this notice.” The order also included a certification that it had been translated and read to Mr. Bilek in Czech, his native language. On March 13, 1997, the INS sent a letter to Mr. Bilek, at the address he provided the INS. The letter included the date, time, and location of the hearing and warned that if he failed to appear, the IJ could hold the hearing in his absence and order him deported. One month later, USPS returned the notice to the Department of Justice as “refused” and “unclaimed.” Mr. Bilek did not appear for his scheduled hearing on July 22, 1997. The IJ determined that Mr. Bilek had been “duly notified of the time and place of the hearing” and ordered him deported in absentia. Mr. Bilek did not appeal the deportation order. In 1999, Mr. Bilek moved to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals