Valladares-Blanco v. Garland ( 2022 )

Case: 20-60560 Document: 00516364643 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 21, 2022
No. 20-60560 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Mauricio Humberto Valladares-Blanco,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A200 029 609
Before Barksdale, Willett, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Mauricio Humberto Valladares-Blanco, a native and citizen of El
Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his motion to
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-60560 Document: 00516364643 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2022
No. 20-60560
reopen and rescind his 2005 in absentia order of removal. The motion to
reopen was filed over 13 years after the order of removal.
Valladares contends, inter alia: he did not receive proper notice of his
removal proceedings; and his due-process rights were violated. Denial of a
motion to reopen is reviewed, understandably, “under a highly deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard”. Lowe v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 713, 715 (5th Cir.
2017) (citation omitted). An in absentia order of removal may be rescinded if
an alien demonstrates he did not receive notice of the hearing in accordance
with 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a). 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii).
Valladares maintains his notice to appear was defective, and his due-
process rights violated, because the notice to appear failed to specify the time
and date of his hearing. Section 1229(a) provides: an alien subject to removal
proceedings is entitled to written notice that specifies, inter alia, the time and
place of the removal proceedings and the consequences for failing to appear.
8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(G). On the other hand, an alien is not entitled to
written notice of his removal hearing if he fails to provide an address at which
he can be contacted after being informed of his obligation to do so. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(b)(5)(B); Mauricio-Benitez v. Sessions, 908 F.3d 144, 147 (5th Cir.
2018).
Because the record reflects Valladares was informed of his obligation
to provide an address, and there is nothing in the record indicating he did so,
“he forfeited his right to notice under § 1229a(b)(5)(B) and therefore may
not now seek to reopen his removal proceedings and rescind the removal
order”. Spagnol-Bastos v. Garland, 19 F.4th 802, 806–07 (5th Cir. 2021)
(denying petition for review because, inter alia, alien provided deficient
address). Moreover, he is unable to demonstrate his due-process rights were
violated, because his failure to receive notice was not because of any
malfeasance by the Government, but instead “due to [his] neglect of [his]
2
Case: 20-60560 Document: 00516364643 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/21/2022
No. 20-60560
obligation to keep the immigration court apprised of [his] current mailing
address”. Luna-Garcia v. Barr, 932 F.3d 285, 292–93 (5th Cir. 2019)
(quoting Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 360 (5th Cir. 2009))
(denying due-process claim because, inter alia, alien given “ample warning”
to provide mailing address).
Given that Valladares was not entitled to notice, it is unnecessary to
address his claims regarding any deficiency in the notice to appear, or
whether 8 C.F.R. § 1003.15(b) and (c), governing the contents of a notice to
appear, is entitled to deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def.
Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842–43 (1984), including whether he preserved
the claims.
DENIED.
3