Case: 22-60666 Document: 00516783498 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/12/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-60666 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ June 12, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Anna Grullon-Garcia, Clerk Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. ______________________________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A078 311 778 ______________________________ Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Anna Grullon-Garcia, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of her motion to reopen and rescind an in absentia removal order based on lack of notice. _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-60666 Document: 00516783498 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/12/2023 No. 22-60666 Grullon-Garcia argues that she did not receive proper written notice of her removal hearing given that her notice to appear (NTA) did not specify a time and date for her hearing. She also challenges the BIA’s conclusion that she forfeited the right to written notice of her removal hearing by failing to provide a valid address where the immigration court could mail the notice. This court reviews the BIA’s decision and considers the IJ’s decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, and its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. Id. The substantial evidence test “requires only that the BIA’s decision be supported by record evidence and be substantially reasonable.” Omagah v. Ashcroft, 288 F.3d 254, 258 (5th Cir. 2002). This court will not reverse the BIA’s factual findings unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Chen v. Gonzalez, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). “The applicant has the burden of showing that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” Id. The denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed “under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Barrios-Cantarero v. Holder, 772 F.3d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, this court will affirm the BIA’s decision unless it is “capricious, irrational, utterly without foundation in the evidence, based on legally erroneous interpretations of statutes or regulations, or based on unexplained departures from regulations or established policies.” Id. The BIA relied on Spagnol-Bastos v. Garland, 19 F.4th 802 (5th Cir. 2021), and found that Grullon-Garcia had forfeited the right to written notice of her removal hearing by failing to provide a valid address where notice could be sent. Grullon-Garcia does not address Spagnol-Bastos in her brief. Instead, she relies on Rodriguez v. Garland, 15 F.4th 351 (5th Cir. 2021), and argues 2 Case: 22-60666 Document: 00516783498 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/12/2023 No. 22-60666 that because her NTA failed to specify the date and time of her removal …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals