Case: 16-60179 Document: 00514334013 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/02/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 16-60179 February 2, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk JOSE SANTOS MEJIA, also known as Jose Santos Zavala-Mejia, Petitioner v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. JAMES L. DENNIS, Circuit Judge: Jose Santos Mejia petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings so that he could apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). For the following reasons, we dismiss the petition in part, for lack of jurisdiction, and deny the petition in part. I Mejia, a native and citizen of Honduras, entered the United States on August 30, 2004, without having been admitted or paroled after inspection by an immigration officer. Immigration authorities served Mejia in person with Case: 16-60179 Document: 00514334013 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/02/2018 No. 16-60179 a Notice to Appear (NTA) in removal proceedings and subsequently released him. The NTA did not provide a date for Mejia’s hearing. When a hearing date was later set, a notice of the hearing was not sent to Mejia. In November 2004, an immigration judge (IJ) in Texas held an in absentia hearing, found Mejia subject to removal, and ordered him removed to Honduras. The removal order stated that Mejia did not receive notice of the hearing because he failed to provide his address to the immigration court. In November 2010, immigration authorities apprehended Mejia, and he was removed to Honduras on December 28, 2010. Mejia reentered the United States in May 2011. In June 2014, immigration authorities again apprehended Mejia, and the Department of Homeland Security reinstated his prior removal order. Mejia claims that he did not receive a copy of the reinstatement order until October 24, 2014. Also on October 24, 2014—according to Mejia, before he received notice of the reinstatement of his prior removal order—Mejia filed a motion to reopen his prior removal proceedings in order to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under CAT. Mejia argued that his motion to reopen should be considered timely because he did not receive notice of his removal hearing and because, according to Mejia, country conditions in Honduras had materially changed. The IJ denied Mejia’s motion. The IJ concluded that Mejia was not entitled to notice of the 2004 removal hearing because he failed to provide a valid address to the immigration court. The IJ further found that Mejia failed to show a material change in country conditions. Finally, the IJ determined that Mejia was not eligible for reopening pursuant to the immigration court’s authority to reopen sua sponte. Mejia appealed to the BIA, and the BIA upheld the IJ’s denial of reopening for essentially the same reasons the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals