FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT February 22, 2021 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court ENIL NOE MACIAS CHEBES, Petitioner, v. No. 20-9515 (Petition for Review) ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General of the United States, * Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * * _________________________________ Before BACHARACH, LUCERO, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ The term “notice” often derives its meaning from the context. The context here involves a motion to reopen proceedings when a noncitizen is * During the pendency of this appeal, Mr. Robert M. Wilkinson became Acting Attorney General of the United States. We’ve thus substituted General Wilkinson as the respondent. See Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). ** We conclude that oral argument would not materially help us to decide the appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). So we have decided the appeal based on the record and the parties’ briefs. Our order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if otherwise appropriate. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). ordered removed in absentia. In this context, immigration judges can rescind removal orders upon proof that the noncitizens didn’t receive notice of their removal hearings. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). But what if the noncitizens live in others’ homes and the homeowners don’t give the noncitizens their mail? Have the noncitizens received their notices? This was the issue for Mr. Macias Chebes. Mr. Chebes’s removal hearing was set on September 12, 2013. At the time, he was living with his aunt, whose address he had provided for the notice. The postal service properly delivered Mr. Chebes’s notice to his aunt’s address. She received the notice but didn’t give it to Mr. Chebes. No one attributes ill motives to the aunt; she attributes the lapse to her condition, suffering from thyroid cancer and depression. Irrespective of her reasons, Mr. Chebes didn’t know about the hearing date; so he didn’t appear, and the immigration judge ordered removal in absentia. Mr. Chebes tried to reopen the removal proceedings, pointing out that he hadn’t seen the notice. The issue is whether Mr. Chebes received the notice through its delivery to the aunt’s house. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). On this issue, Mr. Chebes bears the burden. Gurung v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 718, 722 (10th Cir. 2004). The Board of Immigration Appeals concluded that Mr. Chebes had not satisfied his burden, relying on its prior opinion in In re G-Y-R-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 181, 189 (BIA 2001) (en banc). There the Board had 2 addressed the noncitizen’s obligation to provide an address to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Id. at 186. In discussing what constitutes a sufficient address, the Board considered whether a noncitizen obtains notice when it is delivered to the right address but is ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals