Martinez-Galeas v. Garland, 20-61029

Petitioner Jose Ramiro Martinez-Galeas, a Honduran national, was detained on December 3, 2007 and personally served with a Notice to Appear (NTA) listing the address "6117 Gulf Freeway #1454, Houston, TX 77023."
A contemporaneous Form I-213 signed by the same officer listed a different address: "7910 Bellaire 653, Houston, TX 77036."
A Notice of Hearing and the February 21, 2008 in‑absentia removal order were mailed to the Gulf Freeway address and both envelopes were returned as undeliverable.
Martinez-Galeas learned of the removal order in 2017 and moved to reopen in October 2019, arguing he did not receive proper notice of the hearing.
The IJ denied reopening as untimely and found no exceptional circumstances because notice had been sent to the address provided on the NTA; the BIA affirmed, reasoning that personal service of the NTA put Martinez-Galeas on notice of his obligation to provide a correct address.
The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review, holding the record did not rebut the presumption of notice and noting the court lacks jurisdiction to review denial of sua sponte reopening.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner rebutted the presumption he received notice so as to rescind an in‑absentia removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii)	Martinez‑Galeas: returned mail and discrepant addresses show he did not receive required notice	Government/BIA: petitioner was personally served with an NTA listing an address and thus was on notice to provide a correct address; statutory exception applies	Held: BIA did not abuse discretion; personal service put petitioner on notice and § 1229(a)(2)(B) exception applies; motion to reopen denied
Whether the BIA erred in declining to exercise sua sponte authority to reopen	Martinez‑Galeas: BIA should vacate and reopen sua sponte	BIA/Government: sua sponte reopening is discretionary and not reviewable	Held: Denial of sua sponte reopening is not reviewable; court affirms dismissal

Mauricio‑Benitez v. Sessions, 908 F.3d 144 (5th Cir. 2018) (receipt of an NTA with a misspelled or erroneous address can put a respondent on notice of the error)
Gomez‑Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 2009) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for denial of motion to reopen)
Ontunez‑Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 2002) (reviewing the BIA and considering the IJ’s decision when it influenced the BIA)
Theodros v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 396 (5th Cir. 2007) (when BIA relies on IJ reasoning, the court reviews the IJ to the extent it impacted the BIA)