Dimas Ramirez-Lopez v. Merrick B. Garland


NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 22a0241n.06 No. 21-3794 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Jun 15, 2022 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk DIMAS ABIDAN RAMIREZ-LOPEZ, ) ) Petitioner, ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ) AN ORDER OF THE BOARD OF v. ) IMMIGRATION APPEALS ) MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, ) ) OPINION Respondent. ) ) Before: MOORE, STRANCH, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges. KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Dimas Ramirez-Lopez petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen his in-absentia removal order. We DENY in part and DISMISS in part the petition for review. I. BACKGROUND Ramirez-Lopez is a native and citizen of Guatemala. Administrative Record (A.R.) at 295 (Notice to Appear at 1). He arrived in the United States on April 11, 2015, when he was seventeen years old. Id. He was served with a Notice to Appear and placed in removal proceedings, A.R. at 295–96 (Notice to Appear), but those removal proceedings were administratively closed after he filed an unaccompanied minor application for asylum, A.R. at 279 (IJ Order). On January 31, 2018, an immigration judge (IJ) granted the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) motion to recalendar the proceedings. A.R. at 278 (IJ Order). Ramirez- Lopez’s counsel filed several motions to withdraw, each of which the IJ denied. A.R. at 247 (IJ No. 21-3794, Ramirez-Lopez v. Garland Order); A.R. at 249–51 (Mot. to Withdraw); A.R. at 263 (IJ Order); A.R. at 264–66 (Mot. to Withdraw); A.R. at 270 (IJ Order); A.R. at 274–76 (Mot. to Withdraw). On September 19, 2018, Ramirez-Lopez’s counsel was served with a Notice of Hearing. A.R. at 245 (Notice of Hearing). Counsel again moved to withdraw on September 25, 2018. A.R. at 240–42 (Mot. to Withdraw). On October 1, 2018, the IJ granted the motion to withdraw and sent a copy of the Order to Ramirez-Lopez, his former counsel, and his current counsel. A.R. at 239 (Order). Handwritten on the Order are the following sentences: “MC set for 10/25/18 at 8:30 to determine attorney. Individual hearing set for 5/29/19 at 2:30.” Id. A notice of hearing was mailed to Ramirez-Lopez on October 15, 2018. A.R. at 90 (Notice of Hearing). On October 20, 2018, on a phone call, Ramirez-Lopez’s attorney informed him of hearing date. A.R. at 81 (Ramirez-Lopez Statement); A.R. at 3 (BIA Order at 1). Ramirez-Lopez did not appear, and, on October 25, 2018, the IJ ordered him removed in absentia. A.R. at 89 (IJ Order). On November 23, 2018, Ramirez-Lopez filed a motion to reopen and/or reconsider the in- absentia removal order. A.R. at 60–68 (Mot. to Reopen and/or Reconsider). He explained that he was confused because the document that he received said “MC set for 10/25/18” and “[i]individual hearing set for 5/29/19.” A.R. at 62 (Mot. to Reopen and/or Reconsider at 2). Thus, he thought that his hearing was not until May 29 of the following year. Id. He did not know what …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals