Jose Cruz Pleitez v. William Barr
938 F.3d 1141
9th Cir.2019Background
- Petitioner Jose Cristobal Cruz Pleitez, a native of El Salvador, entered the U.S. in 1990 at age 10 and filed an affirmative asylum application in 1996 at age 16.
- INS served an Order to Show Cause (OSC) by certified mail; Petitioner signed the return receipt on July 25, 1996.
- Petitioner did not appear for the October 15, 1996 deportation hearing and an IJ ordered deportation in absentia.
- In 2014 Petitioner moved to reopen, arguing notice was inadequate because he was a minor and no adult custodian received the OSC per Flores-Chavez v. Ashcroft.
- The BIA denied reopening, holding Flores-Chavez did not apply because Petitioner had not been detained and released to an adult; the Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding regulatory and due-process notice sufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service of the OSC on a 16‑year‑old alone satisfied statutory notice under 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2) | Cruz: Service on only the minor was inadequate; Flores‑Chavez requires notice to responsible adult | Government/BIA: Statutes/regulations required only personal or certified‑mail notice to the alien; special adult notice rule applies to under‑14 or detained juveniles | Service on Petitioner by certified mail met § 1252b(a)(2); notice was adequate |
| Whether Flores‑Chavez’s rule (adult notice when juvenile is released to adult custody) extends to never‑detained minors over 14 who filed affirmative asylum applications | Cruz: Flores‑Chavez should extend because minors generally need adult assistance to navigate proceedings | Government/BIA: Flores‑Chavez is tied to detention/release framework and does not govern never‑detained, affirmatively applying minors | Court: Flores‑Chavez is limited to minors who were detained and released to an adult; it does not extend to never‑detained minors over 14 who affirmatively applied |
| Whether denial of reopening violated due process by failing to require notice to a responsible adult | Cruz: Due process (Mathews v. Eldridge) requires adult notice given minors’ vulnerability | Government/BIA: Due process satisfied; additional adult‑notice burden would be substantial and of limited value here | Court: Applying Mathews balancing, the government interest and burden outweigh the marginal benefit; no due‑process violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Flores‑Chavez v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2004) (juveniles detained and released to an adult require notice to that adult)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (establishes three‑part balancing test for procedural due process)
- Dillingham v. INS, 267 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2001) (aliens have substantial liberty interests implicating due process)
- Larita‑Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2000) (alien minors entitled to Fifth Amendment due process protections)
- Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903) (early recognition of aliens’ due process rights)