RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 21a0136p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │ Plaintiff-Appellee, │ > No. 20-1077 │ v. │ │ NOE FLORES-PEREZ, │ Defendant-Appellant. │ ┘ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit. No. 2:19-cr-20004-1—David M. Lawson, District Judge. Decided and Filed: June 16, 2021 Before: CLAY, READLER, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _________________ COUNSEL ON BRIEF: Colleen P. Fitzharris, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEFENDER, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant. Kevin M. Mulcahy, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee. _________________ OPINION _________________ CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. Noe Flores-Perez was charged with illegal reentry following his deportation and subsequent return to the United States. In an effort to defeat the reentry charge, Flores-Perez collaterally attacks his initial removal order, alleging that the order was invalid due to a lack of notice. The district court rejected Flores-Perez’s argument because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies. We agree and affirm on that ground. No. 20-1077 United States v. Flores-Perez Page 2 BACKGROUND As Flores-Perez was leaving a Michigan courthouse in 2001, immigration officials detained him and transported him to a nearby immigration office on the belief that Flores-Perez was in the country illegally. Flores-Perez provided immigration officials with two forms of state-issued identification, each of which contained his address. Officials then served Flores-Perez with a Notice to Appear, or NTA. The NTA alleged that Flores-Perez was a citizen of Mexico who had illegally entered the United States approximately 16 months earlier. All of this, it seems, is relatively standard fare in the removal process. Unfortunately, what happened next is not. Although possessing Flores-Perez’s identification cards listing his correct address—Apartment 311—immigration officials wrote an incorrect address—Apartment 132—on the NTA. Nonetheless, Flores-Perez signed the NTA with the incorrect address, attesting to its accuracy. No interpreter assisted with the initial processing. As Flores-Perez left the immigration office, however, a Spanish-speaker gave him a number of relevant documents, including a copy of the NTA he had signed, and told Flores-Perez in Spanish that he would receive another document in the mail from immigration officials. In April 2002, the immigration court sent a Notice of Hearing to the address on the NTA. The Notice of Hearing stated that Flores-Perez’s removal hearing would occur on January 22, 2003. The Notice was returned to the immigration court, however, because “no such number” existed at the apartment complex. When Flores-Perez did not attend the hearing, the immigration judge proceeded in absentia and ordered Flores-Perez removed. The removal order was mailed to the same address as the Notice of Hearing, and, like the Notice, was also returned to sender. In 2009, immigration officials arrested Flores-Perez in Michigan. In accordance with his 2003 removal order, Flores-Perez was deported a few days later. Flores-Perez alleges in an affidavit that he tried to find an immigration lawyer following his arrest but failed to do so in advance of his …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals