Case: 17-60792 Document: 00514717327 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 8, 2018 No. 17-60792 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ROBERTO ENRIQUE MAURICIO-BENITEZ, also known as Roberto Sanchez-Fajardo, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A098 121 741 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. JENNIFER WALKER ELROD, Circuit Judge: Petitioner Roberto Enrique Mauricio-Benitez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). He contends that the BIA erred in refusing to reopen his removal proceedings because he never received notice of his removal hearing. Because Mauricio-Benitez failed to provide the immigration court with his correct mailing address, and because he failed to rebut the weak presumption of delivery of his notice of hearing (NOH), we DENY his petition for review. Case: 17-60792 Document: 00514717327 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2018 No. 17-60792 I. On or around June 13, 2004, Mauricio-Benitez entered the United States near Roma, Texas, without being admitted or paroled. The same day, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) personally served him with a Notice to Appear (NTA) charging him with being removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). The NTA ordered Mauricio-Benitez to appear at a removal hearing before an immigration judge (IJ) at a date and time to be set and noted the following: “If you fail to attend the hearing . . . a removal order may be made by the [IJ] in your absence[.]” Mauricio-Benitez acknowledged on the NTA that he had received oral notice in Spanish of the consequences of failing to appear. The NTA also contained instructions regarding Mauricio-Benitez’s mailing address. It stated that he was required to provide the DHS with his address in writing and warned him to “notify the Immigration Court immediately” if he changed his address because “[n]otices of hearing [would] be mailed to this address.” In addition, it notified Mauricio-Benitez that if he did not provide an address at which he could be reached during his removal proceedings, he would not be entitled to receive written notice of his hearing. The mailing address listed on the NTA was “4010 West Belford Apt. 705,” whereas Mauricio-Benitez claims that his correct address at the time was “4010 West Belfort Apt. 705.” According to Mauricio-Benitez, he provided the correct address, but an immigration officer introduced the spelling error when preparing the NTA. There is no indication in the record that he corrected the address when he received the NTA. The following month, the DHS sent a NOH to Mauricio-Benitez at the West Belford address via regular mail. The NOH informed Mauricio-Benitez that his removal hearing had been scheduled for September 21, 2004, and again warned him of the consequences of failing to appear. Mauricio-Benitez 2 Case: 17-60792 Document: 00514717327 Page: ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals