NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 23a0195n.06 Case No. 22-3514 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED ) Apr 26, 2023 CHERLIN GISSEL ALVARENGA-CANALES, DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ) Petitioner, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW v. ) FROM THE UNITED STATES ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, ) APPEALS Respondent. ) ) OPINION Before: BOGGS, McKEAGUE, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges. McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Cherlin Gissel Alvarenga-Canales seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her motion to reopen and rescind her in absentia removal order. We lack jurisdiction to review some of her arguments, as she failed to raise them below, and dismiss those parts of her petition. For those portions properly before us, we deny the petition. I. BACKGROUND Petitioner Cherlin Gissel Alvarenga-Canales is a native and citizen of Honduras. She entered the United States alone on or around May 25, 2016, when she was fourteen years old. At that time Alvarenga-Canales was personally served with a Notice to Appear (NTA) charging her with being present in the United States without admission or parole pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). The NTA did not state a time, date, or location for Alvarenga-Canales’s initial Case No. 22-3514, Alvarenga-Canales v. Garland hearing, noting that those specifics were “to be set.” Because she was an unaccompanied minor, she remained in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement until she was released into the custody of her mother. The Department of Homeland Security commenced formal removal proceedings by filing a copy of the NTA with the immigration court, at which point the immigration court mailed Alvarenga-Canales a Notice of Hearing including the date, time, and location for her initial hearing. The initial hearing occurred on February 17, 2017, with Alvarenga-Canales, at that point fifteen years old, and her mother both in attendance. The immigration judge (IJ) continued the proceedings to allow Alvarenga-Canales time to retain counsel. The IJ told Alvarenga-Canales and her mother that failure to retain counsel was not an acceptable reason to miss Alvarenga- Canales’s next court date. Alvarenga-Canales’s mother, however, claims that she believed retaining counsel was a mandatory requirement for the next hearing. The same day that her initial hearing was continued, Alvarenga-Canales, through her mother, was personally served with a notice stating that the next hearing would take place on February 13, 2018. But Alvarenga-Canales failed to appear for her February 13, 2018 hearing. The IJ held the hearing notwithstanding Alvarenga-Canales’s absence in accordance with Section 240(b)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A), and sustained the removability charges against Alvarenga-Canales. Alvarenga-Canales was ordered removed in absentia. This decision was mailed to Alvarenga-Canales. On July 30, 2020, over two years after the removal order was entered, Alvarenga-Canales, through counsel, filed a motion to rescind her in absentia removal order and reopen her immigration proceedings. Alvarenga-Canales, at that point eighteen years old, argued that -2- Case No. 22-3514, Alvarenga-Canales v. Garland extraordinary circumstances …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals