Melida Luna-Garcia v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Gen, 924 F.3d 198

Luna-Garcia, a Guatemalan national, entered the U.S. without inspection in 2014, was detained, and served a Notice to Appear (NTA) that stated she had “FAILED TO PROVIDE A US ADDRESS.”
Border Patrol records listed a Guatemalan village as her permanent residence and a generic San Antonio entry on Form I-213; the NTA instructed her to submit Form EOIR-33 to provide a mailing address and warned that failure could result in in-absentia removal.
After release, Luna-Garcia did not provide a U.S. address to the immigration court and failed to appear at a June 10, 2004 hearing; an IJ ordered removal in absentia for lack of notice caused by her failure to supply a U.S. mailing address.
In 2015 she moved to reopen and rescind the in-absentia order, arguing she had satisfied her obligation by providing a foreign (Guatemalan) address and thus did not receive notice; the IJ and BIA denied reopening.
The Fifth Circuit reviews BIA denials of motions to reopen for abuse of discretion and reviews legal questions de novo; the court considers whether a foreign address can satisfy 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(F)(i) and whether Luna-Garcia’s conduct justified denying reopening.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1229(a)(1)(F)(i) permits a foreign address to satisfy notice requirements	Luna-Garcia: statute does not specify U.S. vs foreign address; foreign address suffices	Government: aliens in U.S. must provide U.S. address to receive mailed notice of removal	Court: U.S. address required for aliens physically in U.S. and subject to removal
Whether BIA abused discretion in denying motion to reopen given foreign address	Luna-Garcia: she satisfied obligation and lacked notice	Government: she failed to provide a contactable U.S. address and failed to follow up after NTA lacked a U.S. address	Court: no abuse of discretion; even assuming foreign address could suffice, here it was not contactable and she failed to follow up
Whether in-absentia order violated due process for lack of notice	Luna-Garcia: ordering removal without notice denied due process	Government: lack of notice resulted from her neglect to keep court apprised of address	Court: due process not violated; failure to receive notice due to her neglect and NTA warned her to provide a U.S. address
Whether BIA had to explicitly inform her that only a U.S. address would suffice	Luna-Garcia: she was not informed she must provide a U.S. address	Government: NTA clearly stated failure to provide a U.S. address and warned to submit mailing address; regulatory follow-up required	Court: NTA provided adequate warning that she needed to provide and update a U.S. mailing address

Mauricio-Benitez v. Sessions, 908 F.3d 144 (5th Cir.) (motions to reopen reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Hernandez-Castillo v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 199 (5th Cir.) (notice and clear-evidence standard for in-absentia removal)
Ramos-Portillo v. Barr, 919 F.3d 955 (5th Cir.) (statutory requirement interpreted to require a U.S. address for aliens in the U.S.)
Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354 (5th Cir.) (in-absentia orders need not be rescinded when failure to receive notice is due to alien’s neglect)
Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) (explaining various removal and detention procedures)