Case: 16-60602 Document: 00514566646 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/23/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 23, 2018 No. 16-60602 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk SANDRA GABRIELA HERNANDEZ-ANDRADE; ARTURO ROBERTO RAUDALES-HERNANDEZ, Petitioners v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A098 285 582 BIA No. A098 285 583 Before ELROD, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Sandra Gabriela Hernandez-Andrade petitions—on behalf of both herself and her son Arturo Roberto Raudales-Hernandez—for review of an order of the Bureau of Immigration Appeals (the “BIA”) dismissing a motion to reconsider her motion to reopen. Because we lack jurisdiction, the petition for review is dismissed. * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 16-60602 Document: 00514566646 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/23/2018 No. 16-60602 I. Hernandez-Andrade and her son—natives and citizens of Honduras— entered the United States illegally near Eagle Pass, Texas in June 2004. The Border Patrol briefly detained both and processed them for removal proceedings. Hernandez-Andrade and her son were personally served with notices to appear charging them with being present in the United States without admission or parole. Both notices explained that a hearing date would be set later, and Hernandez-Andrade confirmed in writing that she had been advised in Spanish of the consequences of failing to appear. While detained, Hernandez-Andrade expressed her intention to reside with her sister in North Hills, California, and provided the border patrol with that address. Approximately one month later, the immigration court sent a notice of hearing to that address via regular mail. Though the notice of hearing was not returned as undeliverable, Hernandez-Andrade contends that she never received it. She therefore failed to appear for proceedings before the immigration court and was ordered removed in absentia. About 11 years later, in 2015, Hernandez-Andrade filed a motion to reopen removal proceedings, contending that she would have appeared at her immigration hearing had she received notice. The immigration judge denied Hernandez-Andrade’s motion to reopen in a written decision and the BIA affirmed. This petition for review followed. II. We have jurisdiction to review final orders of removal “only if the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) “Petitioners fail to exhaust their administrative remedies as to an issue if they do not first raise the issue before the BIA, either on direct appeal or in a motion to reopen.” 2 Case: 16-60602 Document: 00514566646 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/23/2018 No. 16-60602 III. Before this Court, Hernandez-Andrade claims that ordering her removal in absentia violated her due process rights. But Hernandez-Andrade never presented a due process argument to the BIA. Rather, she argued that the immigration judge erred in concluding that she ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals