Varela-Ramirez v. Garland

Case: 20-61112 Document: 00516567621 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/06/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 20-61112 December 6, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Alba Yessenia Varela-Ramirez,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A201 527 344
Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Dennis and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Alba Yessenia Varela-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Honduras,
petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of her motion
to reopen and rescind her in absentia order of removal. Varela-Ramirez
contends that she did not receive proper notice of her removal proceedings
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-61112 Document: 00516567621 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/06/2022
No. 20-61112
because the immigration court sent the notice of hearing to the wrong
address. She argues that she gave the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) her correct address, that DHS sent the immigration court the wrong
address, and that she did not have an opportunity to correct the error because
she was not provided with any documentation reflecting the incorrect
address and, thus, had no way of knowing that her address was improperly
recorded. Varela-Ramirez also asserts that the BIA failed to address all the
relevant evidence when making its determination.
We review the denial of a motion to reopen under “a highly deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.” Hernandez-Castillo v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 199,
203 (5th Cir. 2017). An in absentia order of removal may be rescinded if an
alien demonstrates she did not receive notice of the hearing in accordance
with 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a). 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C). Written notice is
sufficient if it is sent to “the most recent address provided.”
§ 1229a(b)(5)(A). The BIA found no clear error in the IJ’s factual finding
that the notice of hearing was sent to Varela-Ramirez’s address of record,
which was the address she provided to DHS upon her release from custody.
Contrary to Varela-Ramirez’s contention, the evidence does not compel a
contrary conclusion. See Spagnol-Bastos v. Garland, 19 F.4th 802, 806–07
(5th Cir. 2021); Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 358 (5th Cir. 2009).
Varela-Ramirez argues that the BIA failed to address her utility bill,
her affidavit, and the affidavit of Justina Rivera, the wife of a pastor who
assisted her. The first two pieces of evidence tend to show that Valera-
Ramirez resided at 203 Raymond Street in Nashville. And the third piece of
evidence shows that the Rivera family helped Valera-Ramirez get to
Nashville. But none of this evidence shows that Valera-Ramirez provided the
203 Raymond Street address to immigration officers, as she would need to
establish for relief. Weighing the evidence, the IJ found that Varela-Ramirez
provided 213 (not 203) Raymond Street as her address to DHS on her release
2
Case: 20-61112 Document: 00516567621 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/06/2022
No. 20-61112
from custody. The BIA agreed with the IJ’s finding that notice was sent to
the address Varela-Ramirez had provided. It was not necessary for BIA “to
specifically address every piece of evidence put before it,” Cabrera v.
Sessions, 890 F.3d 153, 162 (5th Cir. 2018) (quotation omitted), especially
when the three pieces of evidence at issue had an unclear relationship to the
claim Varela-Ramirez seeks to establish.
Varela-Ramirez has failed to show that the BIA’s decision was
“capricious, irrational, utterly without foundation in the evidence, based on
legally erroneous interpretations of statutes or regulations, or based on
unexplained departures from regulations or established policies.” Barrios-
Cantarero v. Holder, 772 F.3d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the
petition for review is denied.
3