Case: 19-60742 Document: 00515664839 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 19-60742 December 7, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Oscar Omar Canales-Berrios, Clerk Petitioner, versus William P. Barr, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A098 935 658 Before Wiener, Costa, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Petitioner Oscar Omar Canales-Berrios unlawfully entered the United States and was served with a Notice to Appear that did not include the date or time of his hearing. It did include, however, the requirement that Canales- Berrios provide his address to immigration authorities. It warned that if he did not provide his address, the government was not obligated to notify him * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 19-60742 Document: 00515664839 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2020 No. 19-60742 of his hearing—at which he could be ordered removed, whether or not he appeared. Canales-Berrios never provided his address. He now asks us to reverse the Board of Immigration Appeals for reinstating his in absentia order of removal. Under our precedents, Canales-Berrios can receive no relief. We affirm. I A On September 20, 2005, Canales-Berrios, a native and citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States without having been duly admitted or paroled. The next day, he was served in person with a Form I-862 (a Notice to Appear) charging him with removability under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The NTA stated that Canales-Berrios was ordered to appear before an immigration judge in San Antonio, Texas, “on a date to be set,” “at a time to be set.” It informed Canales-Berrios that he was “required to provide” the immigration authorities, “in writing, with [his] full mailing address and telephone number” and to “notify the Immigration Court immediately” of any changes. If Canales-Berrios did not submit a change of address “or otherwise provide an address,” the NTA warned, the government would “not be required to provide [him] with written notice of [his] hearing.” The NTA further warned that if Canales-Berrios did not appear at his hearing, the IJ could order him to be removed in his absence. Canales-Berrios concedes that he “did not provide an address” for service. His removal hearing was set for November 29, 2005, and the government did not give Canales-Berrios notice of the hearing. Canales- Berrios did not appear at the hearing. The IJ concluded that Canales-Berrios did not receive notice of the hearing because he “failed to provide the court with his[] address as required” under the statute, “after having been advised 2 Case: 19-60742 Document: 00515664839 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/08/2020 No. 19-60742 of that requirement in the Notice to Appear.” The IJ ordered Canales- Berrios removed in absentia. In April 2013, Canales-Berrios was in a ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals