Juan Hernandez-Castillo v. Jefferson Sessions, III, 875 F.3d 199

Background

Hernandez-Castillo, a Salvadoran, was apprehended after illegal entry in March 2005, served with a notice to appear (NTA) that required him to provide a mailing address/phone and warned that failure to appear could lead to in absentia removal. He signed the NTA and received oral admonitions in Spanish.
Border Patrol released him on his own recognizance; he provided a phone number that proved invalid and never provided a valid U.S. mailing address or timely EOIR‑33 to the immigration court.
DHS filed the NTA in immigration court; Hernandez-Castillo failed to appear at a May 4, 2005 hearing and an IJ entered an in absentia removal order.
More than nine years later he moved to reopen, claiming lack of notice, improper release from custody, delay in filing the NTA, and new asylum/CAT claims. The IJ denied reopening; the BIA affirmed, finding he failed to provide a valid address, declined sua sponte reopening, and denied administrative closure for lack of prima facie relief eligibility.
Hernandez-Castillo petitioned for review challenging (1) denial of motion to reopen, (2) BIA’s refusal to reopen sua sponte, and (3) denial of administrative closure. The Fifth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and jurisdictional limits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether motion to reopen in absentia order should be granted because he lacked notice	Hernandez‑Castillo: he didn’t receive written notice; release from custody and late filing of NTA made notice unlikely	Government: he was served the NTA that required him to provide/maintain an address; he never provided a viable address so no written notice required	Denied — BIA did not abuse discretion; statutory scheme and precedent require aliens to keep court apprised of address, so lack of actual notice due to his failure is not grounds to reopen
Whether refusal to reopen proceedings sua sponte is reviewable by court	Hernandez‑Castillo: BIA should exercise sua sponte authority based on humanitarian/CAT/withholding claims	Government: sua sponte reopening is discretionary and unreviewable	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — Fifth Circuit cannot review BIA’s refusal to reopen sua sponte
Whether denial of administrative closure was erroneous	Hernandez‑Castillo: BIA should administratively close to allow pursuit of relief given humanitarian factors and withholding/CAT claims	Government: closure improper because he has not shown prima facie eligibility for relief	Denied — Fifth Circuit holds it has jurisdiction to review such denials and concludes BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying administrative closure (Avetisyan factors support denial)
Whether denial violated due process	Hernandez‑Castillo: lack of written notice and release without custody violated due process	Government: relief sought is discretionary; no protected liberty interest; statutory notice rules govern	Denied — no due process violation; motion to reopen is discretionary and statutory notice requirements were met given petitioner’s failure to provide address

Key Cases Cited

Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 2009) (an alien’s failure to keep court apprised of address can preclude rescission of in absentia removal)
Singh v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 484 (5th Cir. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for BIA decisions)
Gonzalez-Cantu v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 302 (5th Cir. 2017) (distinguishing statutory and regulatory reopening authority)
Mata v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 2150 (2015) (assumed arguendo courts lack jurisdiction to review BIA refusals to reopen sua sponte)
Avetisyan (BIA) is heavily relied upon by the court for administrative-closure factors but is not listed here because it is an administrative decision rather than a reported case.
Gonzalez-Vega v. Lynch, 839 F.3d 738 (8th Cir. 2016) (joined circuits holding courts have jurisdiction to review denials of administrative closure)