NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 18a0395n.06 No. 17-4227 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Aug 07, 2018 XINQUAN ZHONG, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ) Petitioner, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW v. ) FROM THE UNITED STATES ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney ) APPEALS General, ) ) Respondent. ) ) BEFORE: SUHRHEINRICH, CLAY, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Xinquan Zhong petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings and rescind an in absentia removal order. As set forth below, we deny the petition for review. Zhong, a native and citizen of China, purportedly entered the United States in 1993. On August 16, 1999, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) arrested Zhong and personally served him with a notice to appear (NTA) in removal proceedings, charging him with removability as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). The NTA, which Zhong signed, ordered him to appear before an IJ upon notification of a hearing, advised him of his obligation to provide the INS with his address and notify the Immigration Court of any change of address, and warned him that the IJ could enter a removal order in his absence if he failed to appear for a scheduled hearing. The NTA listed No. 17-4227 Zhong v. Sessions Zhong’s address as 15492 Garrison Lane, Southgate, Michigan 48195. On that same day, the INS served Zhong with other documents, including a record of deportable/inadmissible alien (Form I- 213); an order of release on recognizance (Form I-220A); a notice to appear, bond, and custody processing sheet (Form I-265); and a notice of rights and request for disposition (Form I-826). Each of these forms indicates that a telephonic interpreter provided translation into Cantonese. In signing Form I-220A, Zhong acknowledged that he “had interpreted and explained to [him] in the Cantonese Chinese language” the conditions of his release, which included the requirement that he “must not change [his] place of residence without first securing written permission.” On January 27, 2000, the Immigration Court mailed a hearing notice to the Garrison Lane address, informing Zhong that a hearing had been scheduled for May 3, 2000. When he failed to appear for the hearing, the IJ ordered Zhong’s removal to China in absentia. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A). Seventeen years later, Zhong filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings and rescind the in absentia removal order. Zhong asserted that he did not receive the hearing notice and that he was not advised in a language that he could understand about the responsibility to update his address or the consequences of failing to appear. Denying Zhong’s motion to reopen, the IJ agreed with the government that Zhong “received proper service of his NTA and that any failure to receive his hearing ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals