USCA11 Case: 22-12003 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 05/19/2023 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-12003 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ JULIO RODRIGUEZ-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A097-664-917 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-12003 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 05/19/2023 Page: 2 of 6 2 Opinion of the Court 22-12003 Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Julio Marcelino Rodriguez-Martinez 1 (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”). The IJ’s decision denied Petitioner’s mo- tion to reopen and to rescind an order of removal issued in absen- tia. 2 We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection in August 2002. In February 2004, the Immigration and Naturaliza- tion Service issued a Notice to Appear (“NTA”), charging Peti- tioner as removable for being present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled. The NTA ordered Petitioner to appear before an IJ in Orlando, Florida at a date and time to be set. About two weeks later, the immigration court mailed Peti- tioner a Notice of Hearing, giving notice that a master hearing be- fore the immigration court was scheduled for 11 August 2004. A second Notice of Hearing was later mailed rescheduling the master hearing for 1 September 2004. 1 Petitioner says his real name is Victor Vinicio Valdez Avila. For purposes of this appeal, we refer to him as “Petitioner.” 2 The IJ also denied as moot Petitioner’s motion for change of venue. That ruling is not before us on appeal. USCA11 Case: 22-12003 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 05/19/2023 Page: 3 of 6 22-12003 Opinion of the Court 3 Petitioner failed to appear at the 1 September hearing. The IJ conducted the hearing in absentia and ordered Petitioner re- moved to Mexico. In March 2020 -- more than 15 years after he was ordered removed -- Petitioner (through his lawyer) moved to reopen the proceedings and to rescind the IJ’s in absentia order. Petitioner ar- gued that his removal proceedings should be reopened based on two grounds: (1) under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii) because he did not receive proper notice of the hearing; and (2) based on the IJ’s sua sponte authority. In support of his lack-of-notice argument, Petitioner asserted that the NTA was defective because it specified no date and time for his hearing and, on top of that, he never re- ceived a Notice of Hearing. The IJ denied Petitioner’s motion to reopen. The IJ first de- termined that Petitioner failed to present evidence sufficient to demonstrate a lack of proper notice. Second, the IJ determined that Petitioner had shown no “extraordinary circumstances” that would justify equitably tolling the statutory deadline for filing a motion to reopen. 3 Third, the IJ …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals