Camaj v. Holder
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23177
6th Cir.2010Background
- Camaj is a native and citizen of the former Yugoslavia who entered the U.S. without inspection in 1994 and faced deportation proceedings begun in 1995.
- The OSC and hearing notice were personally served; the initial hearing occurred April 13, 1995, and was continued to April 27, 1995 for counsel assistance.
- Notice for the continued hearing was sent by certified mail to Camaj’s counsel; the hearing was reset for September 25, 1995 with a new location in Detroit.
- The September 25, 1995 hearing was held at a different courthouse than the April 27 hearing; Camaj did not appear by 9:34 a.m., and the IJ ordered deportation in absentia.
- The Sixth Circuit remanded in 2003 to assess whether in-person service was practicable at East Jefferson Street; the Board remanded to a new IJ, who found in-person service impracticable.
- The IJ in 2007 relied on Dobson’s affidavit and related evidence to conclude in-person service was impracticable; the Board affirmed; Camaj’s petition for review was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of notice to trigger in absentia order | Camaj had practicable in-person notice | Notice via counsel sufficed under §1252b(a)(2) | Notice satisfied; no abuse of discretion |
| Tardiness as failure to appear and jurisdictional bar | Slight tardiness should not equal non-appearance | Deportation in absentia upheld under statutory framework | Court lacks jurisdiction on the tardiness argument; but sustains Board’s decision on notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Camaj v. INS, 78 Fed.Appx. 465 (6th Cir.2003), 78 Fed.Appx. 465 (6th Cir.2003) (unpublished opinion addressing notice practicability for in absentia orders)
- Scorteanu v. INS, 339 F.3d 407 (6th Cir.2003) (burden on movant to show improper notice in asylum-related proceedings)
- Haddad v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 515 (6th Cir.2006) (abuse of discretion standard for motion to reopen)
- Denko v. INS, 351 F.3d 717 (6th Cir.2003) (direct review of IJ decision when Board affirms)
- Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770 (9th Cir.2008) (tardiness treated as non-appearance inappropriate in some circuits)