Case: 20-60778 Document: 00516772621 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/02/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 2, 2023 No. 20-60778 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Jorge Vicente Nivelo Cardenas, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A077 444 951 Before Stewart, Dennis, and Southwick, Circuit Judges. Leslie H. Southwick, Circuit Judge: Petitioner challenges the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings and rescind his in absentia removal order. This challenge adds to our recent caselaw analyzing different supposed flaws in notice given to individuals about removal hearings. In this case, the original 1999 Notice to Appear given to Petitioner soon after being detained did not schedule his removal hearing. When Petitioner was 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 Case: 20-60778 Document: 00516772621 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/02/2023 No. 20-60778 must provide notice of any change of address. A few months later, notice of his scheduled hearing was sent to the slightly misspelled address. It was returned with the notation: “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 Jorge Vicente Nivelo Cardenas, a native and citizen of Ecuador, en- tered the United States without inspection on or about July 17, 1999. He was 25 years old. Soon after his entry, he was apprehended with others who had entered the country near Brownsville, Texas. On July 23, 1999, he was given a Notice to Appear (“NTA”), charging him as subject to removal because he was present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled. The NTA did not provide a hearing date or time. Nivelo Cardenas’s then- current address was correctly listed on the NTA as the address of the pro- cessing center in Los Fresnos, Texas, where he was then detained. The NTA informed Nivelo Cardenas that he was required to notify the immigration court immediately of any change in his address, that the Government would not be required to provide him written notice of his hear- ing if he did not provide an address at which he could be reached, and that the immigration judge (“IJ”) could issue a removal order in his absence if he failed to attend a designated hearing. Nivelo Cardenas and the border patrol agent signed the certificate of service, which also stated Nivelo Cardenas “was provided oral notice in the Spanish language of the time and place of his . . . hearing and of the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals