NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 22a0466n.06 No. 22-3358 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Nov 18, 2022 ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk MARIA INES VILLALOBOS, ) Petitioner, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW v. ) FROM THE UNITED STATES ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, ) APPEALS Respondent. ) ) OPINION ) Before: READLER, MURPHY, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Maria Ines Villalobos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of her motion to reopen her removal proceedings. As set forth below, we DENY Villalobos’s petition for review. Upon Villalobos’s unlawful entry into the United States in April 2005, the Department of Homeland Security arrested her and then served her with a notice to appear in removal proceedings, charging her with removal as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Villalobos appeared for the first removal hearing and was personally served with a notice scheduling the next hearing for January 18, 2006. When Villalobos failed to appear at the second hearing, the immigration judge (IJ) ordered her removal in absentia. Fourteen years later, in April 2020, Villalobos filed a motion to reopen her removal proceedings and to rescind the in absentia removal order, asserting that she never received notice No. 22-3358, Villalobos v. Garland of the hearing, that she was unable to attend the hearing because she had an automobile accident, and that she was unaware of the hearing date because someone broke into her apartment and stole her papers. Along with her motion, Villalobos submitted an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and an application for cancellation of removal. Villalobos also filed a motion to change venue to Louisiana, where she resided. An IJ denied Villalobos’s motions. The IJ first determined that Villalobos had failed to establish lack of notice to warrant reopening of her removal proceedings and rescission of the in absentia removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). The IJ pointed out that Villalobos did not dispute receiving the notice to appear and hearing notices and that her appearance at the first hearing demonstrated actual notice of the removal proceedings. With respect to whether exceptional circumstances excused Villalobos’s failure to appear, the IJ found that her motion was neither filed within 180 days of the in absentia removal order nor supported by corroboration to carry her burden of establishing extraordinary circumstances. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i). The IJ recognized that a party may move to reopen at any time to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT protection based on changed country conditions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i). According to the IJ, Villalobos had failed to present material evidence of changed country conditions that could not have been discovered or presented at her last hearing, and even …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals