Melida Luna-Garcia v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Gen
932 F.3d 285
| 5th Cir. | 2019Background
- Luna-Garcia, a Guatemalan national, entered the U.S. without inspection in 2004, was detained, and received a Notice to Appear (NTA) that stated she “FAILED TO PROVIDE A US ADDRESS.”
- Border Patrol records listed a San Antonio address “c/o INS” and a Guatemalan village as her permanent residence; Luna-Garcia signed a certificate acknowledging service but never provided a mailing address to the immigration court after release.
- An IJ held a hearing in June 2004 which Luna-Garcia did not attend; the IJ found no notice had been mailed because she failed to provide a U.S. address as required and ordered removal in absentia.
- In 2015 Luna-Garcia moved to reopen the in absentia removal, arguing she had satisfied the statutory address requirement by providing a foreign (Guatemalan) address and therefore did not receive notice.
- The IJ denied reopening for failure to provide an address and failure to follow up after release; the BIA affirmed, concluding a foreign address was insufficient for an alien residing in the U.S.
- The Fifth Circuit denied her petition for review, holding (1) the statute requires a U.S. address for aliens present in the U.S. and subject to removal, and (2) alternatively, she did not provide a contactable address nor follow required follow-up procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1229(a)(1)(F)(i) permits a foreign address to satisfy the mailing-address requirement | Luna-Garcia: statute does not specify U.S. vs. foreign address; her Guatemalan address satisfied the requirement | Government: aliens in U.S. must provide a U.S. address so notices mailed will reach them | Held: For aliens physically in the U.S. and subject to removal, the statute requires a U.S. address; foreign address insufficient |
| Whether BIA abused discretion in denying motion to reopen an in absentia removal for lack of notice | Luna-Garcia: she did not receive notice because she provided an address (foreign) | Government: she failed to provide a U.S. mailing address and thus was not entitled to notice; also failed to follow-up after NTA listed no U.S. address | Held: No abuse of discretion; alternate grounds (address not contactable and failure to follow up) support denial |
| Whether the BIA’s decision violated due process by ordering removal without notice | Luna-Garcia: due process violated because she lacked actual notice | Government: lack of notice resulted from her failure to keep court apprised of address; NTA warned her to provide a U.S. address | Held: No due process violation—failure to receive notice was due to her neglect and NTA adequately warned her |
| Whether BIA was required to inform her expressly that only a U.S. address would suffice | Luna-Garcia: she was not told she must provide a U.S. address | Government: NTA stated she “FAILED TO PROVIDE A US ADDRESS” and told her notices would be mailed to the address she provides | Held: No; the NTA sufficiently informed her she needed to provide a U.S. mailing address and the consequences of failing to do so |
Key Cases Cited
- Mauricio-Benitez v. Sessions, 908 F.3d 144 (5th Cir.) (highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard for BIA denials of motions to reopen)
- Hernandez-Castillo v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 199 (5th Cir.) (standards for rescission of in absentia removal where notice provision contested)
- Ramos-Portillo v. Barr, 919 F.3d 955 (5th Cir.) (statutory mailing-address requirement construed to require a U.S. address for aliens in the U.S.)
- Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354 (5th Cir.) (in absentia order need not be rescinded where failure to receive notice was due to alien’s neglect)
- Enriquez-Gutierrez v. Holder, 612 F.3d 400 (5th Cir.) (affirmance may be warranted despite reversible error where no realistic possibility of a different outcome)
- Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018) (interpretive principles regarding statutory text and notice requirements)