NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 20a0574n.06 No. 20-3042 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Oct 07, 2020 RONALD OSVALDO RAMOS, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ON PETITION FOR REVIEW ) FROM THE BOARD OF ) WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, IMMIGRATION APPEALS ) Respondent. ) Before: MERRITT, KETHLEDGE, and WHITE, Circuit Judges. KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. An immigration judge ordered Ronald Osvaldo Ramos removed when he failed to appear at his removal proceedings. Ramos moved to reopen those proceedings 13 years later, asserting that he had not received notice of his removal hearing and that exceptional circumstances excused his failure to appear. The IJ denied that motion, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. We deny Ramos’s petition for review. I. In 1999, Ramos left El Salvador, crossed the U.S.-Mexico border without authorization, and settled in Columbus, Ohio. The next year he applied for asylum. In March 2003, the government mailed to Ramos’s Columbus address a notice to appear, which told him that the government thought he was in the country illegally, that he was required to appear before an IJ for a removal hearing in June 2003, and that he was required to inform the immigration court of any No. 20-3042, Ramos v. Barr change in his mailing address. Nine days later, the government mailed a notice that said the room for the hearing had changed. Ramos failed to attend his hearing. That same month—June 2003—he moved to Canton without notifying the immigration court of his new address. In August 2003, the government sent to Ramos’s Columbus address a notice that it had rescheduled his removal hearing for the following June. Ramos failed to attend that hearing as well, and the IJ ordered him removed in absentia. More than 13 years later—in February 2018—Ramos filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings, alleging that he had not received notice of his June 2003 and June 2004 removal hearings and that exceptional circumstances excused his failure to appear. The IJ denied his motion. The Board affirmed, finding that Ramos was properly “served by mail with the notice to appear on March 24, 2003,” that the notice told him to notify the immigration court of any change in his address, and that he failed to do so when he moved in June 2003. The Board also found that his failure to appear was not due to exceptional circumstances. This petition followed. II. We review the Board’s denial of Ramos’s motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion. Dieng v. Barr, 947 F.3d 956, 960 (6th Cir. 2020). In doing so, we treat the Board’s factual findings as “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Ramos argues that he did not receive the notice to appear sent to his Columbus address in March 2003. See id. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). But Ramos concedes that he was living at that address at the time the notice ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals