NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 18-2877 _____________ RAMON COPLIN, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _______________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the United States Department of Justice Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA 1:A078-830-303) Immigration Judge: David Cheng _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 23, 2020 Before: JORDAN, RESTREPO, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges (Filed: March 24, 2020) _______________ OPINION* _______________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. JORDAN, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Ramon Coplin seeks review of the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) of his motion to reopen proceedings related to his in absentia removal order. Coplin says that he did not receive the notice to appear (“NTA”) that was sent by regular mail to the address he provided to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). The BIA decided that Coplin did not overcome the presumption of receipt that attaches to notices sent via regular mail. Because we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its direction in denying the motion to reopen, we will deny the petition for review. I. BACKGROUND Coplin is a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic who came to the United States in 1991, when he entered without inspection. He has resided here ever since. In 2001, his status was adjusted to lawful permanent resident on a conditional basis, premised on an application by his U.S. citizen spouse. In 2003, Coplin filed a petition to remove the conditions on his permanent resident status. He appeared at an interview with the USCIS and was advised that the decision on his petition would be mailed to him. On August 8, 2005, Coplin’s status as a lawful permanent resident was terminated because he “failed to establish that [his] marriage was entered into in good faith, and not merely to procure [his] entry to the United States as an immigrant.” (A.R. 99.) The Department of Homeland Security then issued an NTA charging Coplin as removable. The NTA was sent by regular mail to the address Coplin had provided. Over the next several months, hearing notices were sent to Coplin’s address, scheduling and rescheduling the hearing. 2 The date finally set was May 10, 2006, but Coplin failed to appear for his hearing, and the immigration judge (“IJ”) ordered his removal in absentia. Although Coplin learned of the removal order in 2006 when he tried to obtain proof of his immigration status in order to renew his driver’s license, there was no activity in his case until some six years later, when his counsel sent a letter to the IJ asking to review Coplin’s file. Following the submission of that letter, there was again no activity in Coplin’s case for nearly six years, at which point his counsel filed a motion to reopen and rescind Coplin’s in absentia removal order due to lack of notice. In his ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals