Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
-.
UITED STATES DEPATMNT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMIGRTION REVIEW
_ . ,
IMMIGRTION COURT
700 E. SA ANIO, SUITE 750
EL PASO, TX 79901
SCHIDER, MK T., ESQ.
1487 CHAIN BRIDGE ROA, SUITE 302
MCLEA, VA 22101
IN THE MTER OF
SOTO-FERADEZ, JUA CALOS
FILE A 076-395-660
UALE TO FORWAD - NO ADRESS PROVIDED
DATE: May 24, 2012
, ATTACHED IS A COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE IMIGRTION JUGE. THIS DECISION
IS FINAL ULESS A APPEAL IS FILED WITH THE BOAD OF IMIGRTION APPEAS
WITHIN 30 CAENA DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE MILING OF THIS WRITTEN DECISION.
SEE THE ENCLOSED FORMS AD INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPERLY PREPAING YOU APPEA.
YOUR NOTICE OF APPEA, ATTACHED DOCUETS, AD FEE OR FEE WAIVR REQUEST
MUST BE MILED TO: BOAD OF IMIGRATION APPEALS
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
P.O. BOX 8530
FALLS CHURCH, VA 22041
ATTACHED IS A COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE IMMIGRTION JUDGE THE RESULT
OF YOU FAILURE TO APPEAR AT YOUR SCHEDULED DEPORTATION OR REMOVA HEARING.
THIS DECISION IS FINAL UNLESS A MOTION TO REOPE IS FILED IN ACCORDACE
WITH SECTION 242B(c) (3) OF THE IMIGRTION AD NATIONAITY ACT, 8_U.S.C.
SECTION 1252B(c) (3) IN DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS OR SECTION 240(c) (6),
8 L..\. SECTION 1229a(c) (6) IN REMOVA PROCEEDINGS. IF YOU FILE A MOTION
TO REOPEN, YOUR MOTION MUST BE FILED WITH THIS COURT:
OTHER:
IMIGRATION COURT
700 E. SA ATONIO, SUITE 750
EL PASO, TX 79901
CORK
IMIGRTION COURT
CC: INS DISTRICT COUSEL
1545 HWKINS BLV., SUITE 275
EL PASO, TX, 799250000
FF
'j'
. . \.
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t
&
R
e
f
u
g
e
e
A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
|
w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Juan Carlos Soto-Hernandez, A076 395 660 (BIA March 15, 2013)
(
I te Matter of
(
U.S. DEPATMENT OF JUSTICE
Executive Ofce fr Immigation Review
Immigation Cou
El Paso, Texas
File A076 395 660
I Removal Proceedings
SOTO-FERNADEZ, Juan Calos
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Order of the Imgation Judge
The respondent in this cae was ordered removed in absentia on June 8, 1998. On
December 27, 2011, the respondent, through counsel, fled a moton to reopen. The
Departent of Homeland Security ("DHS") had the opportunit to fle a response to the
respondenfs motion, but declined to do so. The motion will be denied.
The respondent makes a motion to reopen proceedings based on lack of notice.
Motions to reopen ae disfvored, ad the moving party bears a heavy buden.
Altamirano-Lopez V. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 2006). There is a presumption
that te U.S. Postal Service properly perfrs its duties in the delivery of mail, unless it
is rebuted by an affdavit fom the respondent. Makokija V. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 588,
590 (5th Cir. 2005). However, submission of a afdavit detailing lack of delivery is not
necessarily sufcient in and of itself to rebut the presumpton of successfl delivery by
the Postal Service. Matter of C-R-C-, 24 I&N Dec. 677 (BIA 2008). A alien is not
entitled to rescission of a deportation or removal order where the failure to receive actual
notice of the time of the hearing is the result of the alien's failure to comply with the
obligation to keep the immigation court apprised of his or her curent mailing address.
Gomez-Palacios V Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 361 (5th Cir. 2009).
The Court notes that the NT A was personally sered on the respondent ad he
was provided oral notice in the Spanish language. The Notice to Appea ("N")
infored the respondent that he "must notif the Immigration Court immediately"
whenever he chaged his "address or telephone number during the course of this
proceeding." I a notarized afdavit, the respondent admits receiving the NT A, but
assers that he never received the notice of hearing at the address he provided t the
Court. The record refects that the respondent's notice of hearing was reted to the
Court as undeliverable and the reason was because the respondent did not provide the
Postal Serice with a frwading address, nor did he update his mailing address with the
Court.
While the respondent provided an affdavit supporing the claim that he did not
receive notice of hearing, the Court fnds that the respondent's affdavit is not sufcient
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t
&
R
e
f
u
g
e
e
A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
|
w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
r
(
f
\
in establishing that the respondent did not purposeflly avoid appearing at his removal
hearing. It was the respondent's duty to keep the Court apprised of hs current mailing
address, ad he failed to do so. Therefre, the motion to reopen shall be, ad is hereby,
DENED. SO ORDERED.
Date:
$ )1} / 2
Place: El Paso, Texas
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t
&
R
e
f
u
g
e
e
A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
|
w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t