Renaut v. Holder, Jr.
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9237
| 1st Cir. | 2015Background
- Petitioner Alan Soares Renaut, a Brazilian who entered the U.S. without inspection in 2003, was detained, given a Notice to Appear (NTA), and later released; he requested transfer of his case to Boston and provided a Corregidor Road mailing address.
- The Boston Immigration Court mailed a hearing notice for March 2, 2004, to the Corregidor Road address; the envelope was returned stamped "ATTEMPTED, NOT KNOWN," and Renaut did not receive the notice or appear; an IJ ordered removal in absentia.
- In 2012–2013 Renaut married a U.S. citizen and filed adjustment-related paperwork; he moved to reopen the removal proceedings in April 2013, asserting he did not receive the hearing notice and that he had kept receiving mail at the Corregidor Road address.
- The IJ denied the motion to reopen, concluding Renaut failed to notify the court of an address change and that the notice was sent to his last known address; the BIA affirmed, finding Renaut had “evaded delivery” by not providing a residential address.
- Renaut appealed to the First Circuit, arguing the IJ applied the wrong legal standard and the BIA affirmed based on impermissible factfinding and an incorrect legal rule treating ‘‘address’’ as necessarily a residential address.
- The First Circuit held the IJ and BIA applied an incorrect legal principle (treating failure to provide a residential address as categorical evasion) and failed to make necessary factual findings; it vacated the BIA decision and remanded for clarification and further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IJ applied correct standard for reopening in absentia removal (receipt vs. mailing) | Renaut: IJ used mailing/proof-of-service standard for in absentia entry instead of receipt standard for rescission | Government: Failure to update address supports denial; notice was properly sent to last-known address | Court: IJ and BIA relied on wrong legal principle; remand required for proper application and factfinding |
| Whether providing a mailing address (not residential) satisfies statutory "address" requirement | Renaut: "Address" may be a valid mailing address (friend’s address or PO box) and suffices | Government/BIA: Failure to provide residential address equals evasion of notice | Court: No authority requiring residential address; agency erred treating non-residential address as categorical evasion |
| Whether Renaut evaded delivery as a factual matter | Renaut: He and friend received other mail at Corregidor Road and removal order was delivered there; no evasion | Government: Lack of explanation for using friend’s address supports inference of evasion | Court: No adequate factual findings by IJ/BIA resolving whether delivery was evaded; factual determination required on remand |
| Whether BIA engaged in impermissible appellate factfinding | Renaut: BIA impermissibly made factual findings on evasion on appeal | Government: BIA’s conclusion was permissible (or supported) | Court: BIA cannot make new factual findings on appeal; issue not fully preserved but BIA adopted IJ’s legal error—remand appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Jianli Chen v. Holder, 703 F.3d 17 (1st Cir.) (review focuses on BIA decision when it adopts IJ findings)
- Chen v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 151 (1st Cir.) (motion to reopen reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Meng Hua Wan v. Holder, 776 F.3d 52 (1st Cir.) (jurisdictional/exhaustion limits re: BIA factfinding claims)
- Sanchez v. Holder, 627 F.3d 226 (6th Cir.) (evasion requires conduct making alien unreachable)
- Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354 (5th Cir.) (distinguishing mailing-address compliance from failure to report mailing address)
- Kurzon v. U.S. Postal Serv., 539 F.2d 788 (1st Cir.) (review courts must look to agency opinion, not counsel briefs, to ascertain basis for decision)