FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE CRISTOBAL CRUZ PLEITEZ, No. 15-72876 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A074-803-846 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, OPINION Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 14, 2019* Pasadena, California Filed September 18, 2019 Before: Mary M. Schroeder and Susan P. Graber, Circuit Judges, and Michael H. Watson,** District Judge. Opinion by Judge Graber * The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). ** The Honorable Michael H. Watson, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. 2 CRUZ PLEITEZ V. BARR SUMMARY*** Immigration Denying Fernando Jose Cristobal Cruz Pleitez’ petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his motion to reopen his 1996 in absentia deportation order, the panel held that the notice Petitioner received of his hearing comported with regulatory requirements and due process, and rejected his argument that he did not receive proper notice because he was 16 years old at the time he was served and no adult was served with the Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing (“OSC”). Petitioner entered the United States without inspection at the age of 10 and affirmatively applied for asylum in 1996 when he was 16 years old. An asylum officer referred his case to immigration court, and the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) served him with an OSC providing the date, time, and location of his deportation hearing. The OSC was sent by certified mail and included a return receipt, which Petitioner signed. When Petitioner did not appear for his hearing, an immigration judge ordered him deported in absentia. In 2014, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen, arguing that notice to him only, without notice to a responsible adult, violated his rights. The immigration judge denied Petitioner’s motion, and the BIA dismissed his appeal. *** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. CRUZ PLEITEZ V. BARR 3 At the relevant time, a regulation provided that notice to a minor under 14 years of age had to be made on a person with whom the minor resided, but no statute or regulation established a special method of serving a minor older than 14. However, in Flores-Chavez v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2004), this court held that, when a minor was detained for illegally entering the United States and then released into the custody of an adult relative, the only reasonable interpretation of the regulations at issue required that INS serve notice to both the juvenile and to the person to whom the regulation authorized release. The panel held that Flores-Chavez does not extend to situations in which a minor over the age of 14 was never detained or released to an adult by the INS and in which he ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals