19-4089 Gomez-Garcia v. Garland UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 3 New York, on the 18th day of May, two thousand twenty-three. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 AMALYA L. KEARSE, 7 MICHAEL H. PARK, 8 ALISON J. NATHAN, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 _____________________________________ 11 12 Jorge Estuardo Gomez-Garcia, 13 Petitioner, 14 15 v. 19-4089 16 17 Merrick B. Garland, 18 United States Attorney General, 19 Respondent. * 20 _____________________________________ 21 22 FOR PETITIONER: Randy Olen, Providence, R.I. 23 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney 24 General; Carl H. McIntyre, Assistant Director; Justin 25 R. Markel, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of 26 Immigration Litigation, United States Department of 27 Justice, Washington, D.C. * The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption accordingly. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 2 DECREED that this petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision is 3 GRANTED, the BIA’s decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the BIA for 4 further proceedings. 5 In November 1996, Gomez-Garcia, a then-15-year-old native and citizen of Guatemala, 6 entered the United States without inspection. Gomez-Garcia was found in Kansas, placed in 7 deportation proceedings, and released into the custody of his uncle, Oscar Daniel Flores. Flores 8 provided his address in Connecticut where Gomez-Garcia would be staying. The immigration 9 court mailed notices of Gomez-Garcia’s deportation hearing to that address in May 1997, 10 November 1997, and January 1998. Two of the notices were addressed to Gomez-Garcia and the 11 third was addressed to Gomez-Garcia in the care of “Oscar Daniel Fores [sic].” All three notices 12 were returned as unclaimed. Gomez-Garcia and his uncle had moved before the notices were sent 13 and had not filed a change-of-address form with the immigration court. Flores had filed a change- 14 of-address notice with the post office; but the first two notices mailed by the immigration court 15 were addressed only to Gomez-Garcia and were not sent in the care of Flores; and the third notice, 16 in its “in care of” line misspelled Flores’s name. Gomez-Garcia did not appear at his April 1998 17 hearing and was ordered removed to Mexico or Guatemala in absentia. In 2018, Gomez-Garcia 18 moved to …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals