Spagnol-Bastos v. Garland, 19 F.4th 802

Manoel Spagnol‑Bastos, a Brazilian citizen, was apprehended after illegally entering the U.S. and served an NTA that warned he must provide a current mailing address and that failure to receive notice could result in removal in absentia.
He was released on bond and (allegedly) gave the address recorded as “102‑169 F Apt 3C, Manhaion, NY 10029.” The government mailed a hearing notice to that address and it was returned as undeliverable.
Spagnol‑Bastos did not appear at the hearing and the immigration judge ordered him removed in absentia; the removal order mailed to the same address also went undelivered.
Nearly 18 years later he moved to reopen, submitting an affidavit that he had given a different, correct address (“169 East 102nd St #3C, New York”) and that the officer had mistranscribed it; he also invoked Pereira and later Niz‑Chavez.
The IJ found his affidavit not credible, concluded the notice was mailed to the address he provided, and denied reopening; the BIA affirmed on the ground he forfeited notice by providing a nonviable address and rejected his cancellation‑of‑removal claim.

Issue	Spagnol‑Bastos's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether he may reopen/rescind an in‑absentia removal for lack of notice when the government mailed notice to the address on file but he alleges the address was mistranscribed	He gave a correct address; the officer mis‑transcribed it; he never received notice, so the order should be rescinded	He provided the address the government used; mailing to that address satisfies notice rules and his failure to provide a viable address forfeits the right to notice	IJ/BIA credibility finding supported by substantial evidence; he forfeited notice rights and reopening was properly denied
Whether he is prima facie eligible for cancellation of removal because Pereira/Niz‑Chavez mean no single valid notice ever triggered the stop‑time rule	Original NTA lacked date/time (Pereira); under Niz‑Chavez stop‑time requires a single notice with all §1229(a) info, so his continuous presence was not stopped	Argument was not meaningfully raised in opening brief and is therefore forfeited; prior Fifth Circuit precedent controlled at briefing time	Forfeited for failure to raise in opening brief; BIA’s conclusion of prima facie ineligibility stands

Mauricio‑Benitez v. Sessions, 908 F.3d 144 (5th Cir. 2018) (alien who fails to provide a viable mailing address forfeits right to notice)
Hernandez‑Castillo v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 199 (5th Cir. 2017) (motions to reopen reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018) (NTA must contain time and date to trigger stop‑time under §1229(b))
Niz‑Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021) (stop‑time triggered only by a single notice containing all §1229(a) information)
Rodriguez v. Garland, 15 F.4th 351 (5th Cir. 2021) (applied Niz‑Chavez; distinguished cases where alien provided a viable mailing address)
Edwards v. Johnson, 209 F.3d 772 (5th Cir. 2000) (issues not raised in opening brief are forfeited)