Sergia Menjivar-Murillo v. Merrick B. Garland

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 22a0496n.06 Case No. 22-3208 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Dec 02, 2022 SERGIA MARIELA MENJIVAR-MURILLO, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ) Petitioner, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM v. ) THE UNITED STATES BOARD OF ) IMMIGRATION APPEALS ; Agency MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, ) No. A200-607-160 Respondent. ) ) OPINION Before: BOGGS, STRANCH, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges. THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Sergia Menjivar-Murillo (“Menjivar”) petitions for review of an order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We dismiss her petition in part and deny it in part. I. On February 24, 2010, Menjivar left Mexico on foot and tried to enter the United States illegally. United States Border Patrol agents found her crossing the border and arrested her. The Border Patrol turned her over to an immigration officer, who determined she was in the United States unlawfully. Thus, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings and personally served Menjivar with a Notice to Appear (“Notice”). That Notice listed Menjivar’s address of record, then in Kentucky, and ordered her to appear before an immigration judge (“IJ”) in Louisville at a date and time “to be set.” AR101. The Notice informed Menjivar of her Case No. 22-3208, Menjivar-Murillo v. Garland. obligation to notify the Immigration Court immediately if she changed her address. Otherwise, the Notice warned, the government would not be required to provide her with written notice of her hearing. The Notice also cautioned that if Menjivar failed to attend a hearing, an IJ could order her removal in her absence. The Immigration Court mailed Menjivar a hearing notice at her Kentucky address the following year. That document informed Menjivar that her removal hearing had been scheduled for October 1, 2012, at the Immigration Court in Louisville. Menjivar failed to appear. In her absence, the IJ concluded DHS had satisfied its burden of proving Menjivar’s removability and ordered her removal. More than seven-and-a-half years later, Menjivar asked the IJ to reopen her case and rescind the removal order. Menjivar explained that she never received the hearing notice because she had moved to another state, though she conceded that she never informed the Immigration Court of her new address. The IJ denied the motion to reopen, concluding Menjivar had received legally adequate notice and that no exceptional circumstances warranted sua sponte reopening. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision and dismissed Menjivar’s appeal. This petition timely followed. Where, as here, the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s reasoning, we review both opinions. See Guzman-Vasquez v. Barr, 959 F.3d 253, 259 (6th Cir. 2020). II. Menjivar presents two arguments in her petition. Neither succeeds. First, Menjivar argues that the IJ should have granted her motion because (1) her initial notice to appear failed to specify the time and location of her hearing, and (2) the hearing notice -2- Case No. 22-3208, Menjivar-Murillo v. Garland. subsequently mailed to her did not cure that defect. …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals