USCA11 Case: 22-10779 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/14/2023 Page: 1 of 10 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-10779 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ ANDRE DELICEANO MILLER, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A 076-475-973 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-10779 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/14/2023 Page: 2 of 10 2 Opinion of the Court 22-10779 Before JORDAN, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Andre Miller petitions for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the denial of his motion to rescind his in absentia order of removal and reopen his immigration proceedings. He argues that the Board abused its discretion when it determined that he received proper notice. His first notice-defect argument is that his notice did not include all the consequences of failing to appear under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5). His second notice-defect argument is that his initial notice to appear did not specify the date and time of his hearing. After careful consideration, we deny his petition. I. Miller is a native and citizen of the Bahamas who entered the United States on a six-month tourist visa in September 2004. Miller overstayed that visa and remained in the United States for another eight years. At that point, the Department of Homeland Security served him with a notice to appear charging that he was removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). The notice ordered Miller to appear before an Immigration Judge at a date and time to be set in the future and warned him of the consequences for failing to appear at his hearing. Specifically, it warned Miller that if he “fail[ed] to attend the hearing at the time and place designated on this notice, or any date and time later directed by the Immigration Court,” then “a removal order may be made by the USCA11 Case: 22-10779 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/14/2023 Page: 3 of 10 22-10779 Opinion of the Court 3 immigration judge in [his] absence,” and he could “be arrested and detained by the [Department of Homeland Security].” Miller received a second notice setting his hearing for May 6, 2013 in Atlanta, Georgia. He was again warned that failure to appear at the hearing could result in an order of removal. On Miller’s motion, the hearing was rescheduled and first moved to New York, and then to Florida. Eventually—in July 2014—Miller attended a master hearing and conceded to removability. The Immigration Judge personally served Miller with notice that his next hearing would be January 20, 2015, and warned him yet again that failure to appear could result in an in absentia removal. In October 2014, Miller’s counsel moved to withdraw from the proceedings “because of [Miller’s] persistent failure to fulfill his obligations.” In doing so, his counsel stated that he informed Miller of his January 2015 hearing, delivered a copy of the notice of hearing to him by …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals