NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 28 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KARINA SANTIAGO-DURAN, No. 19-71196 Petitioner, Agency No. A077-414-592 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 15, 2021 Pasadena, California Before: M. SMITH and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and STEELE,** District Judge. Karina Santiago-Duran, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an April 17, 2019 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) which dismissed her appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of her motion to reopen the in absentia removal order of January 14, 1999. We have jurisdiction * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable John E. Steele, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation. under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). Mata v. Lynch, 576 US 143, 147-48 (2015). Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here, except as necessary to provide context to our ruling. We deny the petition for review. I. On October 27, 1998, Santiago-Duran applied for admission to the United States at the San Ysidro, California port-of-entry and was determined to be inadmissible. A Form I-213 stated that Santiago-Duran provided “Inglewood, CA” as her United States address and a specific address in Nayarit, Mexico as her permanent residence. Santiago-Duran was sent back to Mexico under expedited removal procedures pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), and was prohibited from entering the United States for five years. Nonetheless, on October 28, 1998, Santiago-Duran applied for admission to the United States at the Calexico port-of-entry, where it was determined she did not possess proper documentation to allow legal admission to the United States. A Form I-213 stated that Santiago-Duran provided a specific address in Inglewood, California as her United States address and did not claim any permanent address. Santiago-Duran was personally served with a Notice to Appear (NTA) charging her with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(A)(i) for entering the United States within five years of her October 27, 1998 removal without obtaining prior consent. The NTA listed her current residence as a specific address in Sonora, Mexicali, and 2 ordered her to appear for a removal hearing at the Imperial Immigration Court, although the date and time of the appearance were blank. Santiago-Duran was returned to Mexico to await her immigration hearing. On November 20, 1998, a hearing notice for a January 14, 1999 hearing was sent to Santiago-Duran at an address in Sonora, Mexico. Santiago-Duran failed to appear for her scheduled hearing, and the IJ ordered her removed in absentia to Mexico. On August 3, 2017, petitioner filed a motion to reopen her proceedings, asserting a lack of notice of the hearing because the notice was sent to the wrong address. The motion was not …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals