USCA11 Case: 22-11132 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 03/01/2023 Page: 1 of 5 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-11132 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ ESTEBAN RAMOS SANCHEZ, a.k.a HERMELINDO MENDEZ-TOLCHA, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A079-764-686 USCA11 Case: 22-11132 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 03/01/2023 Page: 2 of 5 2 Opinion of the Court 22-11132 ____________________ Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied Esteban Ramos Sanchez’s motion to reopen his in absentia order of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed. Ramos Sanchez now seeks review of the BIA’s final order. He argues that the BIA failed to give reasoned consideration to his claim that he didn’t re- ceive the notice to appear (“NTA”) and abused its discretion in denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings because he didn’t meet his burden to show lack of receipt. We agree that the BIA did not give reasoned consideration to his NTA challenge; ac- cordingly, we need not reach the motion-to-reopen issue. We review the BIA’s decision as the final judgment and the IJ’s decision to the extent that the BIA expressly adopted it or relied on its reasoning. Bing Quan Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 881 F.3d 860, 872 (11th Cir. 2018). We review claims of legal error, including claims that the BIA did not provide reasoned consideration of its decision, de novo. Id. The BIA’s factual findings are conclusive unless a rea- sonable factfinder would be compelled to conclude otherwise. Lonyem v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 352 F.3d 1338, 1340 (11th Cir. 2003). Whether a noncitizen received sufficient notice of his removal hearing is a finding of fact for a motion to reopen. Contreras-Ro- driguez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 462 F.3d 1314, 1317 (11th Cir. 2006). USCA11 Case: 22-11132 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 03/01/2023 Page: 3 of 5 22-11132 Opinion of the Court 3 The BIA must give reasoned consideration to a petitioner’s claims. See Lin, 881 F.3d at 874. We inquire only whether the BIA “considered the issues raised and announced its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” Id. (quotation marks omit- ted). The BIA need not discuss all record evidence, but it must dis- cuss “highly relevant” evidence, which we have defined as that ev- idence which would compel a different outcome if considered. Ali v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 931 F.3d 1327, 1334 (11th Cir. 2019). When the BIA fails to give reasoned consideration to a petitioner’s claims, we remand those claims. Jathursan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 17 F.4th 1365, 1372 (11th Cir. 2021). A noncitizen who has been given written notice of proceed- ings and fails to appear may be ordered removed in absentia if the Department of Homeland Security “establishes by clear, unequiv- ocal, and convincing evidence” that notice was …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals