Case: 21-60026 Document: 00516228849 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 8, 2022 No. 21-60026 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk Jose Paulino Argueta-Martinez, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A077 794 055 Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Jose Paulino Argueta-Martinez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen in absentia removal proceedings. This court reviews the denial of a motion to reopen under “a highly deferential abuse- * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 21-60026 Document: 00516228849 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/08/2022 No. 21-60026 of-discretion standard, regardless of the basis of the alien’s request for relief.” Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 358 (5th Cir. 2009). The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence and its rulings of law are reviewed de novo. Id. Argueta-Martinez argues that the BIA abused its discretion in affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen because he did not receive proper notice of his initial hearing. He notes that the record clearly shows that he did not receive actual notice of his hearing because the notice was mailed to the wrong apartment number and was returned to sender. Argueta-Martinez does not dispute, however, that the address he initially provided, which was listed on his Notice to Appear (NTA), is not a full mailing address because it does not include a building number; it only has a street name and an apartment number. Thus, even if the notice had been mailed to the apartment number listed on the NTA, it still would have been returned as undeliverable. Moreover, Argueta-Martinez’s argument ignores that he failed to comply with his obligations under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(F)(i) and (ii) to provide an address at which he could be contacted regarding the removal proceedings and to provide a written record of any change of address. The BIA’s finding that Argueta-Martinez was not entitled to actual notice of his removal hearing because he failed to provide an accurate address to the immigration court is supported by substantial evidence and should be upheld. See Gomez-Palacios, 560 F.3d at 358; see also § 1229(a)(2)(B). Argueta-Martinez admitted in a sworn affidavit that he was living in Virginia at the time of his hearing, not at the incomplete California address he initially provided. Additionally, Argueta-Martinez suggests that because his current address was included in his application for Temporary Protected Status, the Government knew of his whereabouts, and the immigration court could have tracked him down. Aside from the fact that Argueta-Martinez did not apply 2 Case: 21-60026 Document: 00516228849 Page: …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals