NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 4 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAUL DANIEL MENDEZ-COLIN, No. 20-71846 Petitioner, Agency No. A090-835-140 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 19, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: McKEOWN and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY,*** District Judge. Raul Daniel Mendez-Colin petitions this Court for review of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion seeking, among * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation. other outcomes, rescission of his in absentia removal order. The Immigration & Nationality Act allows an in absentia removal order to be rescinded through a motion to reopen “filed at any time” if the noncitizen provided a compliant address, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(B), and can show that the noncitizen “did not receive notice in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a) of this title,” id. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). Mendez-Colin argues that the Notice to Appear he received was defective because it failed to provide the date or time of his removal proceedings. We review the BIA’s denial of his motion for an abuse of discretion but review purely legal questions de novo. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). Mendez-Colin’s arguments concerning the defective Notice to Appear that he received pursuant to § 1229(a) match the substance of those raised in a related case that we decide today, Singh v. Garland, No. 20-70050, __ F.4th __ (9th Cir. 2022). For the reasons explained in our opinion in that case, we grant Mendez- Colin’s petition and remand to the BIA. Noncitizens must receive a Notice to Appear, in a single document, with the time and date of their hearing before the government can order them removed in absentia. Here, although Mendez-Colin provided an address to trigger the government’s obligation to provide notice, the government did not provide statutorily compliant notice to him. Because Mendez-Colin did not receive 2 statutorily compliant notice before his removal hearing, the in absentia removal order issued at that hearing is invalid. PETITION GRANTED AND REMANDED. 3 20-71846 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Raul Mendez-Colin v. Merrick Garland 4 February 2022 Agency Unpublished 7e2d193063c6fec2f7cefa095c0b0ff424e27ef1
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals