NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Argued April 10, 2019 Decided April 19, 2019 Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge No. 18‐2940 EDWIN ALEXANDER DURINI‐ GARCIA, Petition for Review of a Petitioner, Decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals v. No. A097‐309‐758 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. O R D E R Edwin Durini‐Garcia was apprehended by border agents on May 29, 2003, at the age of 16 after entering the United States illegally with his mother, and was personally served with a Notice to Appear on that day charging him with removability as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. He did not appear before an immigration judge at that designated appearance date, and the immigration judge ordered him removed in absentia. More than fourteen years later, on November 22, 2017, he filed a motion to reopen and rescind his in absentia removal order. He claims that he first learned that he had been removed in absentia on November 2 after being advised by family members No. 18‐2940 Page 2 that immigration officials were looking for him, although the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) indicated that he filed that motion only after he was charged with aggravated assault on October 25, 2017. In his motion to reopen, he argued that he never received notice of his removal hearing, that his mother did not inform him of his hearing and took no action regarding his immigration status, and that his failure to appear at the removal hearing was not willful. The immigration judge noted that a removal order in absentia may be rescinded if the respondent, through a timely motion to reopen, proves that his failure to appear resulted from a lack of proper notice or from exceptional circumstances. The immigration judge held that the record clearly established that Durini‐Garcia was personally served with the Notice to Appear, which stated the hearing date and location, advised him of the requirement to maintain a current address with the immigration court, and informed him of the consequences for failing to appear at the removal hearing. Durini‐Garcia did not claim that he was not served, but instead argued that he was a minor incapable of understanding it and that his mother failed to ensure that he complied with the law. The immigration judge stated that his argument was misplaced, however, because the regulations require service on an adult residing with the minor only where the minor is under 14 years of age. Because Durini‐Garcia was 16 years of age at the time of service, the judge held that there was no issue with notice and service in this case. The judge then turned to Durini‐Garcia’s alternative argument that exceptional circumstances caused his failure to appear because his mother took no action to bring ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals