NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 19-1547 _____________ EBLER G. ARRIVILLAGA, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ______________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (No. A073-678-888) Immigration Judge: Annie S. Garcy ______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) December 9, 2019 ______________ Before: RESTREPO, ROTH and FISHER, Circuit Judges. (Filed: May 5, 2020) ______________ OPINION* ______________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. RESTREPO, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Ebler G. Arrivillaga1 appeals the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her motion to reopen based on changed country conditions and her motion to reopen sua sponte. I Arrivillaga is a native and citizen of Guatemala. She entered the United States through San Diego, California on April 3, 1994, without inspection. And she filed an Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Deportation on February 8, 1995. Deportation proceedings commenced, and Arrivillaga failed to appear at her May 30, 1995 deportation hearing before an Immigration Judge (IJ). The IJ conducted the hearing in absentia, ruling that her application for relief was abandoned due to her “failure to appear and proceed” and ordering her deported to Guatemala. App. 854. Approximately fifteen years later, on October 5, 2010, Arrivillaga filed a counseled motion to reopen and stay deportation, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(iii), arguing that she lacked notice of her May 1995 deportation hearing— and alternatively requesting sua sponte reopening pursuant to § 1003.23(b)(1). She argued that she was completely unaware of her final hearing because she never received proper notification. On November 3, 2010, the IJ denied Arrivillaga’s motion. 1 Petitioner is a transgender woman who goes by the name “Jessie.” Petitioner’s Br. 1–2. We will refer to her by female pronouns, including when referencing prior proceedings that took place before her transition. 2 Arrivillaga appealed the IJ’s denial to the BIA. In an October 28, 2011 opinion, the BIA affirmed the IJ. Petitioner filed a motion to reopen and reconsider, which the BIA denied. Arrivillaga then petitioned this Court for review. On January 31, 2013, this Court granted the Government’s unopposed motion to remand the case to the BIA to address whether Arrivillaga “received sufficient notice of his May 30, 1995 removal hearing.” Order Granting Respondent’s Unopposed Motion to Remand in Lieu of Respondent’s Brief, Arrivillaga v. Att’y Gen., No. 11-4164 (3d Cir. Jan. 31, 2013). On remand, the BIA directed the IJ to make factual findings and enter a new decision on Petitioner’s motion to reopen. In a July 31, 2014 opinion, the IJ again declined to reopen the case, finding ample evidence that Arrivillaga had received notice of the May 1995 deportation hearing. The IJ again found that she abandoned her application for relief both because she failed to present it at the May 1995 hearing that she did not attend and because there was “no evidence ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals