Nivelo Cardenas v. Garland

Case: 20-60778 Document: 00516772621 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 2, 2023
No. 20-60778 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Jorge Vicente Nivelo Cardenas,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A077 444 951
Before Stewart, Dennis, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.
Leslie H. Southwick, Circuit Judge:
Petitioner challenges the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his
motion to reopen removal proceedings and rescind his in absentia removal
order. This challenge adds to our recent caselaw analyzing different
supposed flaws in notice given to individuals about removal hearings. In this
case, the original 1999 Notice to Appear given to Petitioner soon after being
detained did not schedule his removal hearing. When Petitioner was released
a few weeks later, he signed a form that gave the address at which future
notices could be given. The address had one incorrect letter in the name of
the city but was otherwise completely accurate. Petitioner was informed he
Case: 20-60778 Document: 00516772621 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
No. 20-60778
must provide notice of any change of address. A few months later, notice of
his scheduled hearing was sent to the slightly misspelled address. It was
returned with the notation: “ATTEMPTED, NOT KNOWN.” He did not
attend the hearing and was ordered removed in absentia.
We conclude Petitioner forfeited his right to notice by failing to keep
the immigration court apprised of his correct mailing address or to correct an
erroneous address. We DENY his petition.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Jorge Vicente Nivelo Cardenas, a native and citizen of Ecuador, en-
tered the United States without inspection on or about July 17, 1999. He was
25 years old. Soon after his entry, he was apprehended with others who had
entered the country near Brownsville, Texas. On July 23, 1999, he was given
a Notice to Appear (“NTA”), charging him as subject to removal because he
was present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled.
The NTA did not provide a hearing date or time. Nivelo Cardenas’s then-
current address was correctly listed on the NTA as the address of the pro-
cessing center in Los Fresnos, Texas, where he was then detained.
The NTA informed Nivelo Cardenas that he was required to notify
the immigration court immediately of any change in his address, that the
Government would not be required to provide him written notice of his hear-
ing if he did not provide an address at which he could be reached, and that
the immigration judge (“IJ”) could issue a removal order in his absence if he
failed to attend a designated hearing. Nivelo Cardenas and the border patrol
agent signed the certificate of service, which also stated Nivelo Cardenas
“was provided oral notice in the Spanish language of the time and place of
his . . . hearing and of the consequences of failure to appear as provided in
section 240(b)(7) of the Act.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(7). Despite the state-
ment in the certificate of service about oral notice, the Government concedes
2
Case: 20-60778 Document: 00516772621 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
No. 20-60778
such notice was not given then because the time and place information was
not yet known.
On August 2, 1999, notice was served on Nivelo Cardenas that his case
had been scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on August 12, before the immigration court
at the Los Fresnos center where he was detained. On August 12, he was
served with notice of a hearing scheduled for August 19. He was released
from custody on August 17. On that date, he signed a form entitled “Notifi-
cation Requirement for Change of Address,” indicating his mailing address
was “109 Cedar Ave” in “Patcbogue, NY 11772.” The same address was
also reflected in a Form I-830, “Notice to EOIR: Alien Address,” that was
dated the same day. No such city exists. The “b” in the name should have
been an “h,” i.e., Patchogue.
On October 1, 1999, the immigration court mailed Nivelo Cardenas a
hearing notice to the address with the misspelled city, with the hearing loca-
tion and a date and time of January 28, 2000, at 10:00 a.m. Nivelo Cardenas
did not appear at the scheduled hearing, and the IJ issued a removal order in
absentia.
In November 2018, counsel for Nivelo Cardenas filed a motion to re-
scind the removal order and reopen his removal proceedings. He asserted he
never received notice of the January 2000 hearing because the notice was ad-
dressed improperly and was therefore returned without delivery. The mo-
tion included Nivelo Cardenas’s unsworn written statement indicating,
among other things, that he gave an immigration officer his brother’s address
in “Patchogue, New York”; that he checked his mailbox every day for a hear-
ing notice but never received anything; and that he gave up after two years of
waiting to hear from the immigration court. The motion also cited a “bag
and baggage letter” that correctly spelled “Patchogue” as evidence he pro-
vided the immigration court with the correct address and was not responsible
3
Case: 20-60778 Document: 00516772621 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
No. 20-60778
for the improperly addressed hearing notice. Such a letter is notice that the
person must surrender himself to immigration authorities, bringing his “bag
and baggage” preparatory to being physically removed from the country. See
Nen Di Wu v. Holder, 646 F.3d 133, 134 (2d Cir. 2011). The Government did
not respond to the motion.
The IJ denied the motion on February 20, 2019. The IJ found the
hearing notice was mailed to the “Patcbogue” address Nivelo Cardenas pro-
vided to immigration authorities, as documented in the form he signed. The
IJ also found the mailing was returned to the court by the United States Postal
Service as undeliverable with a stamped notation of “Returned to sender,
Attempted, Not known,” and a handwritten notation stating, “Please return
it to the sender.” The IJ reasoned that Nivelo Cardenas was notified of his
obligation to keep the court apprised of his correct mailing address; that there
was no showing he informed the court of his correct address before January
28, 2000; and that he was provided with proper notice of the January 28,
2000, hearing because there was proof of attempted delivery to the last ad-
dress he provided.
The IJ acknowledged Nivelo Cardenas’s written statement filed with
the motion but concluded the statement should not be considered because it
was not sworn before a notary public or executed under penalty of perjury.
Regardless, the IJ reasoned the outcome would be the same even if the state-
ment were considered.
Nivelo Cardenas appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”). He first argued the IJ relied on documents that were not in the
record of his immigration proceedings, a claim based on the fact those docu-
ments were not among the records Nivelo Cardenas obtained pursuant to a
request for his file under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). He
also challenged the IJ’s application of the law and contended the IJ failed to
4
Case: 20-60778 Document: 00516772621 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
No. 20-60778
give proper consideration to the bag and baggage letter and his written state-
ment. Further, he asserted that if his proceedings were reopened, he would
be eligible for cancellation of removal under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105
(2018), because his NTA did not provide the time of his hearing. That Su-
preme Court decision held an NTA that fails to designate the time or place
of the removal hearing is not valid under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) and therefore
does not constitute the predicate for the stop-time rule for cancellation of re-
moval. Pereira, 138 S. Ct. at 2113–14. Since then, we have needed to decide
whether Pereira applies more broadly than to the stop-time rule.
On August 5, 2020, the BIA upheld the IJ’s decision and dismissed
the appeal. The BIA determined Nivelo Cardenas was notified of his duty to
provide a correct address — which included the obligation to correct any er-
rors in his listed address — but that he failed to do so. Therefore, the BIA
concluded, he received constructive notice of the hearing when notice was
mailed to the last address he provided. The BIA additionally stated it ap-
peared the Postal Service returned the mailing not because it was undeliver-
able but because someone at the address asked that it be returned. Nivelo
Cardenas’s argument regarding the bag and baggage letter was rejected be-
cause he had not shown he provided the address listed in that letter or that
he otherwise corrected the misspelled city name in his address.
The BIA then determined his failure to update his address for over 18
years showed a lack of due diligence and undermined his contention he took
sufficient action to maintain his rights in the removal proceedings. The BIA
also observed that Nivelo Cardenas did not identify any effort to contact the
immigration court in the intervening years. Noting due diligence was a sig-
nificant factor supporting reopening, the BIA determined Nivelo Cardenas’s
lack of diligence militated against reopening.
5
Case: 20-60778 Document: 00516772621 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
No. 20-60778
Nivelo Cardenas filed a motion for reconsideration in the BIA that
made several arguments: (1) It was inappropriate to consider evidence that
was not provided under his FOIA request; (2) The BIA erred by engaging in
de novo factfinding rather than reviewing the IJ’s factual findings for clear er-
ror; (3) Due diligence was irrelevant to reopening; (4) The BIA erred in con-
cluding he was properly notified of the January 28, 2000, hearing; (5) The
BIA improperly considered due diligence in this context of reopening based
on lack of notice; and (6) The immigration court lacked subject matter juris-
diction due to deficiencies with the NTA.
On June 4, 2021, the BIA denied reconsideration. A “denial of a mo-
tion to reconsider is a separate final order, requiring its own petition for re-
view.” Moreira v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 709, 712 (5th Cir. 2007). Nivelo Car-
denas timely petitioned this court for review of the BIA’s denial of reconsid-
eration. He had filed earlier a timely petition for review of the BIA’s August
2020 decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). Both petitions will be considered
in this opinion.
DISCUSSION
The primary issue on appeal is whether Nivelo Cardenas was entitled
to have the in absentia removal order rescinded and proceedings reopened
due to an improper address used to mail notice of the January 2000 hearing.
There are other issues raised, though, and we will review them as well.
We review both the original BIA decision and the decision to deny re-
consideration. The errors raised as to the denial of the motion to reconsider
are largely the same issues raised in the challenge here to the initial BIA de-
cision. Our review of a denial of reconsideration is highly deferential; we will
uphold the denial so long as it was “not capricious, racially invidious, utterly
without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbi-
trary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” Singh v.
6
Case: 20-60778 Document: 00516772621 Page: 7 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
No. 20-60778
Gonzales, 436 F.3d 484, 487 (5th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks and citation
omitted). As to review of BIA decisions generally, we apply a de novo stand-
ard to the BIA’s legal conclusions. Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 592
(5th Cir. 2021). Fact-findings are reviewed for substantial evidence and will
not be overturned unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Her-
nandez-Castillo v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 199, 204 (5th Cir. 2017). “[W]e review
the BIA’s order and will evaluate the [IJ’s] underlying decision only if it in-
fluenced the BIA’s decision.” Id.Generally, we may uphold a BIA decision only on the basis of its stated
rationale, but “[e]ven if there is a reversible error in the BIA’s analysis, affir-
mance may be warranted where there is no realistic possibility that, absent
the errors, the BIA would have reached a different conclusion.” Luna-Garcia
v. Barr, 932 F.3d 285, 291 (5th Cir. 2019) (quotation marks and citation omit-
ted).
I. Notice arguments
A Notice to Appear initiates removal proceedings. Johnson v. Guzman
Chavez, 141 S. Ct. 2271, 2280 (2021). The NTA must specify certain infor-
mation, including “[t]he time and place at which the proceedings will be
held.” § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i). Section 1229(a)(2) applies when the Government
wishes to change the alien’s hearing date. Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct.
1474, 1483 (2021). Changing the hearing date requires service of a written
notice specifying “the new time or place of the proceedings” and the conse-
quences of failing to attend such proceedings, but such written notice is not
required if the alien is not in detention and “has failed to provide the address
required under” Section 1229(a)(1)(F). § 1229(a)(2). The statutory require-
ments are that an alien (1) provide “a written record of an address . . . at
which the alien may be contacted” with respect to his removal proceedings,
and (2) immediately provide “a written record of any change of the alien’s
7
Case: 20-60778 Document: 00516772621 Page: 8 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
No. 20-60778
address.” § 1229(a)(1)(F)(i), (ii). Service of a written hearing notice by mail
is “sufficient if there is proof of attempted delivery to the last address pro-
vided by the alien in accordance with” Section 1229(a)(1)(F). § 1229(c).
Other subsections govern the issuance of an in absentia removal order.
Under Section 1229a(b)(5)(A), an alien who does not attend a proceeding
“after written notice required under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a) .
. . has been provided to the alien” shall be ordered removed in absentia if the
Government “establishes by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence
that the written notice was so provided and that the alien is removable.” The
Government satisfies the notice requirement if the written notice is “pro-
vided at the most recent address provided under section 1229(a)(1)(F).” §
1229a(b)(5)(A). However, “[n]o written notice shall be required . . . if the
alien has failed to provide the address required under section 1229(a)(1)(F).”
§ 1229a(b)(5)(B).
In moving to have his in absentia removal order rescinded, Nivelo Car-
denas relied on a statutory subsection allowing rescission if “the alien
demonstrates that the alien did not receive notice in accordance with para-
graph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a).” § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). Nonetheless, if an
alien fails to provide a correct mailing address, including failure to correct an
erroneous address, “he was not entitled to actual notice of his removal hear-
ing.” Mauricio-Benitez v. Sessions, 908 F.3d 144, 149 (5th Cir. 2018).
While the petition for review was pending in this court, the Supreme
Court issued an opinion holding that before an NTA could invoke the stop-
time rule 1 for cancellation of removal, all necessary information, including
1
The stop-time rule provides that an immigrant’s period of continuous, lawful
presence in the United States ends when the person is served with a proper NTA. Niz-
Chavez, 141 S. Ct. at 1479 (citing § 1229b(d)(1)).
8
Case: 20-60778 Document: 00516772621 Page: 9 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
No. 20-60778
the time and place of the hearing, must be in one document. Niz-Chavez, 141
S. Ct. at 1480–86. The necessary details include the time and place of the
removal hearing. Id. at 1484. Shortly thereafter, we held this single-docu-
ment rule also applied in the in absentia context, such that an NTA containing
all the information specified under Section 1229(a)(1) is required to sustain
an in absentia removal order. Rodriguez v. Garland, 15 F.4th 351, 355 (5th Cir.
2021). How Rodriguez applies to this case is disputed.
In Rodriguez, the petitioner was mailed an NTA at his address in
Texas, but it lacked the date and time of his immigration hearing. Id. at 353.
A notice of hearing was later mailed to the same address, but Rodriguez con-
tended he did not receive the hearing notice because by then he had moved.
Id. He was ordered removed in absentia when he did not appear at the hear-
ing, and the BIA upheld the removal order. Id. at 353–54. We vacated based
on Niz-Chavez, reasoning the BIA erred in determining the NTA and the
subsequent written hearing notice together satisfied the notice requirements
of Section 1229(a). Id. at 355–56. We highlight now, and will explain why
later, that Rodriguez had provided a valid address.
a. Exhausted claim
We start with whether we can even reach this issue. If the argument
now presented was not earlier raised with the BIA, the issue is unexhausted
and we have no jurisdiction to consider it. See § 1252(d)(1); Arce-Vences v.
Mukasey, 512 F.3d 167, 172 (5th Cir. 2007). Exhaustion, though, includes not
only what the immigrant presented, but also what the BIA considered on the
merits, regardless of the adequacy of the alien’s presentation. Lopez-Dubon
v. Holder, 609 F.3d 642, 644 (5th Cir. 2010). “[We] will address an issue on
the merits when the BIA has done so, even if the issue was not properly pre-
sented to the BIA itself.” Id. We examine both possible routes to exhaustion.
9
Case: 20-60778 Document: 00516772621 Page: 10 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
No. 20-60778
In his proceedings before the IJ and BIA, Nivelo Cardenas did not ar-
gue that his motion to rescind and reopen should be granted because his NTA
did not provide the schedule for his hearing, i.e., a Pereira argument. He did
argue to the IJ that because the NTA did not use the proper address, there
should be no presumption of delivery. He first cited Pereira in his brief to the
BIA. There, his argument was that Pereira made him eligible for cancellation
of removal. He relied on Pereira in his motion to reopen for the same point.
The first time Nivelo Cardenas argued there was no subject matter jurisdic-
tion was in his motion for reconsideration at the BIA. His argument relied
on the return of the notice of hearing as undelivered, not on Pereira.
The BIA’s order was clear, though, that it rejected a Pereira challenge
to subject matter jurisdiction:
The respondent argues that the Immigration Court does not
have jurisdiction over these proceedings under Pereira v. Ses-
sions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018) (Respondent’s Mot. at 21-23).
However, in United States v. Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d 490 (5th
Cir. 2019), the court held that the lack of time and place on an
NTA does not divest the Immigration Court of subject matter
jurisdiction. Id. at 497. Thus, the respondent’s NTA was not
defective and jurisdiction in this case is proper.
It does not matter whether the BIA misstated Nivelo Cardenas’s ar-
gument. The important matter is the BIA analyzed the currently-made sub-
ject matter jurisdiction argument on the merits, satisfying the need for ex-
haustion. See Lopez-Dubon, 609 F.3d at 644.
b. Forfeiting right to notice
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, sending “by mail under
this section shall be sufficient if there is proof of attempted delivery to the
last address provided by the alien in accordance with subsection (a)(1)(F).”
10
Case: 20-60778 Document: 00516772621 Page: 11 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
No. 20-60778
§ 1229(c). 2 There are different contexts in which the sufficiency of notice of
a removal hearing can arise. Since Niz-Chavez, we have addressed several
variations: Spagnol-Bastos v. Garland, 19 F.4th 802 (5th Cir. 2021); Gudiel-
Villatoro v. Garland, 40 F.4th 247 (5th Cir. 2022); and Platero-Rosales v. Gar-
land, 55 F.4th 974 (5th Cir. 2022). We will discuss those opinions.
In the earliest of the three cases, in 2000, the NTA served on Spagnol-
Bastos did not provide a hearing date and time; the only address he allegedly
provided before his release on bond was far more errant than the one in the
case before us. See Spagnol-Bastos, 19 F.4th at 804. It was “102-169 F Apt
3C, Manhaion N.Y. N.Y. 10029,” documented in a Form I-830, while the
correct address (not shown until 18 years later) was allegedly “169 East
102nd Street, #3C, New York, 10029.” Id. at 804–05. He was released on
bond, then a hearing notice was later mailed to the incorrect address and re-
turned as “unclaimed.” Id. at 804. Spagnol-Bastos did not appear and was
ordered removed in absentia. Id. About 18 years later, he moved to rescind
the removal order and reopen his proceedings because he had provided the
correct address but it erroneously had been recorded on the Form I-830. Id.
at 804–05.
We held: “Because Spagnol-Bastos failed to provide ‘an address . . .
at which [he] may be contacted respecting’ the removal proceedings, §
1229(a)(1)(f), 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.” Id. at 806–07. The referenced statute states that “[n]o
2
Here, there is a dispute as to whether the petitioner was responsible for the error
in the address used for the mailed notice or if immigration authorities recorded the address
incorrectly. If there is caselaw that an address, if only insignificantly incorrect, moots such
a fact question, it has not been cited to us. Therefore, even though it may be that this one-
letter error, since the zip code and street address were correct, almost certainly would not
interfere with delivery, we will not consider the degree of error.
11
Case: 20-60778 Document: 00516772621 Page: 12 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
No. 20-60778
written notice shall be required under subparagraph (A) [that allows removal
if an alien does not attend proceedings for which notice was given] if the alien
has failed to provide the address required under section 1229(a)(1)(F) of this
title.” § 1229a(b)(5)(B). We also explained that “Spagnol-Bastos’s reliance
on Rodriguez is misplaced because, unlike Spagnol-Bastos, Rodriguez pro-
vided immigration authorities with a viable mailing address and therefore did
not forfeit his right to notice under § 1229a(b)(5)(B).” Id. at 808 n.2.
In the second recent precedent, the alien did not provide any address
after being personally served with an NTA that lacked a hearing date and
time. Gudiel-Villatoro, 40 F.4th at 248. He was ordered removed in absentia
and thereafter filed a motion to reopen the proceedings and rescind the re-
moval order. Id. We rejected Gudiel-Villatoro’s argument that his NTA
needed to include the date and time of his removal proceeding. Id. at 249.
The court indicated an alien’s right to have his in absentia removal order re-
scinded and proceedings reopened if the NTA did not include all the infor-
mation specified in Section 1229(a)(1) “does not apply when the alien fails to
provide an address where he can be reached.” Id. An alien who fails to pro-
vide a usable mailing address forfeits his right to notice pursuant to Section
1229a(b)(5)(B). Id. We recounted past decisions that “held that an alien has
not provided a ‘viable mailing address’ when he fails to provide any address, 3
neglects to update an old address, 4 or fails to correct an erroneous address. 5”
Id. at 249. Because Gudiel-Villatoro did not provide any address at all, the
3
Hernandez-Castillo, 875 F.3d at 202, 206.
4
Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 357, 360–61 (5th Cir. 2009).
5
Mauricio-Benitez, 908 F.3d at 148–49.
12
Case: 20-60778 Document: 00516772621 Page: 13 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
No. 20-60778
court concluded he was not entitled to reopening of his removal proceedings
on the ground that his NTA lacked the hearing date and time. Id. at 249. 6
In another recent opinion, the NTA lacked a hearing date and time,
and the alien had not provided any address. Platero-Rosales, 55 F.4th at 976.
She was ordered removed in absentia; 14 years later, she filed a motion to
reopen the proceedings and rescind the removal order. Id. The court re-
jected her argument that the NTA needed to include the time and place of
her removal proceeding. Id. at 977. Citing Spagnol-Bastos and Gudiel-Villa-
toro, the court held that, under Section 1229a(b)(5)(B), Platero-Rosales for-
feited her right to notice and consequently could not seek to reopen the re-
moval proceedings and rescind the in absentia removal order for lack of no-
tice. Id.
We find Chief Judge Richman’s concurring opinion in Platero-Rosales
particularly helpful. She wrote that “providing the alien with a ‘notice to
appear’ that must necessarily include the time and place of a removal hearing,
is not a prerequisite to the applicability of § 1229a(b)(5)(B).” Id. at 979
(Richman, C.J., concurring). After analyzing the relevant statutory provi-
sions, she concluded, “the statutes provide that the consequence of failing to
provide an address is that the alien can be removed in absentia.” Id. at 980.
Additionally, she addressed the argument that Rodriguez may conflict with
Spagnol-Bastos and Gudiel-Villatoro. Id. at 980–81. She determined Rodriguez
is not controlling in circumstances like here, or like Spagnol-Bastos and
6
Shortly after Gudiel-Villatoro, this court held, in an unpublished case, that an alien
who initially provided immigration officials with an address, but failed to update it after
relocating, forfeited her right to notice for purposes of her in absentia removal order and
her motion to rescind the order and reopen proceedings. Amaya-Ventura v. Garland, No.
20-61076, 2022 WL 2871855, at *2 (5th Cir. July 21, 2022).
13
Case: 20-60778 Document: 00516772621 Page: 14 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
No. 20-60778
Gudiel-Villatoro, where the alien does not provide any address, update an old
address, or correct an erroneous address:
The Rodriguez decision is not precedential with regard to the
issue before our court because the record in Rodriguez reflects
that the [BIA] did not rest its decision on, or even discuss, 8
U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(B), which says that “[n]o written notice
shall be required under subparagraph (A) if the alien has failed
to provide the address required under section 1229(a)(1)(F) of
this title.” . . . By contrast, our court’s decisions in Spagnol-
Bastos v. Garland and Gudiel-Villatoro v. Garland do squarely
address the issue we confront today. Accordingly, they are
binding precedent, and they govern under our rule of orderli-
ness.
Id. (footnotes omitted).
This foundation of caselaw laid, we examine the parties’ arguments.
The Government insists the recent caselaw means that an alien forfeits notice
when he fails to provide an address, update an old address, or correct an er-
roneous address. Thus, the Government argues, Nivelo Cardenas forfeited
his right to notice when he failed to keep the immigration court apprised of
his correct mailing address/to correct an erroneous address.
Nivelo Cardenas argues that, under the rule of orderliness, 7 Rodriguez
governs this case because it conflicts with Spagnol-Bastos, Gudiel-Villatoro,
and Platero-Rosales. Further, he contends Spagnol-Bastos misstated the facts
7
Under the rule of orderliness, “one panel of our court may not overturn another
panel’s decision, absent an intervening change in the law,” such as a Supreme Court or en
banc decision. Mercado v. Lynch, 823 F.3d 276, 279 (5th Cir. 2016) (quotation marks and
citation omitted). That is so even if the earlier “panel’s interpretation of the law appears
flawed.” United States v. Ghali, 699 F.3d 845, 847 (5th Cir. 2012) (quotation marks and
citation omitted). To the extent two panel decisions conflict, the earlier decision controls.
GlobeRanger Corp. v. Software AG United States of Am., Inc., 836 F.3d 477, 497 (5th Cir.
2016).
14
Case: 20-60778 Document: 00516772621 Page: 15 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
No. 20-60778
of Rodriguez when it sought to distinguish it on the ground that Rodriguez
had provided “a viable mailing address.” Nivelo Cardenas asserts that Ro-
driguez had initially given a correct address but failed to update it after mov-
ing. 8 Our review indicates Rodriguez does not state whether the petitioner
provided an updated address; all we know is that he claimed he had a different
address by the time the notice of hearing was sent. See Rodriguez, 15 F.4th at
353.
We see the following as the proper manner to understand these prec-
edents. The specific issue before the court in Rodriguez was “whether the §
1229(a) notice requirements as interpreted in the stop-time context in Pereira
and Niz-Chavez apply to the provision governing recission of an in absentia
removal order at issue in this case.” 15 F.4th at 355. We answered: “Under
Niz-Chavez’s interpretation of § 1229(a), we therefore require a single docu-
ment containing the required information in the in absentia con-
text.” Id. Niz-Chavez did not analyze any questions that could arise if the
address were inaccurate; Rodriguez did not discuss that issue either. Specifi-
cally, the court did not address whether an alien could forfeit his right to no-
tice under Section 1229a(b)(5)(B), nor did it even cite that subsection. 9 It
thus did not consider whether its holding — that a single document contain-
ing the requisite information is required under Section 1229(a) in the in
8
Judge Duncan’s concurrence and Judge Elrod’s dissent in the denial of rehearing
en banc in Rodriguez indicate Rodriguez and the Government were in dispute regarding
whether he submitted a change-of-address form after moving. See Rodriguez v. Garland, 31
F.4th 935, 938 n.6 (5th Cir. 2022) (Duncan, J., concurring); id. at 939–40, 939 n.2 (Elrod,
J., dissenting).
9
When this court, narrowly, denied rehearing en banc in Rodriguez, one dissenting
judge referred to the Section 1229a(b)(5)(B) question and stated that further development
of the facts about Rodriguez’s change of address might show he failed to update it and
therefore was not entitled to notice at all. Rodriguez, 31 F.4th at 939 n.2 (Elrod, J.,
dissenting).
15
Case: 20-60778 Document: 00516772621 Page: 16 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
No. 20-60778
absentia context — was a prerequisite to the applicability of Section
1229a(b)(5)(B). We examined the briefs in Rodriguez and find none that cited
subsection 1229a(b)(5)(B), though all cited subsections (b)(5)(A) and two
cited subsection (b)(5)(C).
The question whether Rodriguez updated his address before the no-
tice of hearing was sent was not discussed and is factually unclear. There was
no argument in Rodriguez about the applicability of Section 1229a(b)(5)(B).
Some members of this court recently expressed views about whether an issue
never discussed in a case could be the foundation for the rule of orderliness.
See United States v. Castillo-Rivera, 853 F.3d 218, 221 n.1 (5th Cir. 2017) (ma-
jority pretermits); id. at 232–37 (Smith, J., dissenting) (rule of orderliness
should not extend to unaddressed issues). We conclude, though, that be-
cause the Rodriguez opinion never stated whether an address change was sub-
mitted, and apparently the record itself is unclear, see supra n.8, it would be
disorderly to say any binding, implicit holding arose.
What is clear is that Spagnol-Bastos, Gudiel, and Platero-Rosales all held
an alien could forfeit his right to notice under Section 1229a(b)(5)(B), regard-
less of whether the NTA contained the hearing time and place, if the alien
failed to provide the immigration court with a mailing address at which he
could be notified. Chief Judge Richman’s concurrence in Platero-Rosales,
which we find persuasive, distinguishes Rodriguez from these subsequent
cases, explaining why it is not necessary to apply Rodriguez under the rule of
orderliness. 55 F.4th at 978–81 (Richman, C.J., concurring). We also agree
with her conclusion that “providing the alien with a ‘notice to appear’ that
must necessarily include the time and place of a removal hearing, is not a pre-
requisite to the applicability of § 1229a(b)(5)(B).” See id. at 979.
Nivelo Cardenas also contends an alien’s failure to correct a mis-
spelled address in an NTA, as was the case in Mauricio-Benitez, should differ
16
Case: 20-60778 Document: 00516772621 Page: 17 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
No. 20-60778
in legal effect from a failure to correct a misspelled address in a document
other than an NTA. We see no basis to distinguish an alien’s failure to cor-
rect a misspelled address in an NTA from a failure to correct a misspelled
address in a document other than an NTA. How the error occurred cannot
be ascertained now, but Nivelo Cardenas signed the form with the one-letter
error in the name of the city to which notices were to be sent.
In summary, we hold: (1) Rodriguez does not apply here; (2) Spagnol-
Bastos, Gudiel, and Platero-Rosales govern this case; (3) the applicable rule
from those cases is that an alien who fails to provide a viable mailing ad-
dress/to correct an erroneous address forfeits his right to notice under Sec-
tion 1229a(b)(5)(B); and (4) Nivelo Cardenas forfeited his right to notice by
failing to correct the erroneous address listed in his “Notification Require-
ment for Change of Address” and Form I-830.
II. Additional arguments as to why the BIA erred
In addition to the notice issues, Nivelo Cardenas raises several argu-
ments as to why the BIA erred in dismissing his appeal and denying his mo-
tion for reconsideration.
Nivelo Cardenas argues the IJ and BIA improperly discounted his
written statement that he provided the immigration court with the correct
address. The only relevant section of his statement is this: “I gave the immi-
gration officer my brother’s address in Patchogue, New York.” Even if the
IJ and BIA accepted the statement as true, the evidence is that Nivelo Car-
denas signed the “Notification Requirement for Change of Address,” and
the misspelled city name was on the form. The Form I-830 also had the mis-
spelling. Even if the error were due to fault by the immigration officer,
Nivelo Cardenas was obligated to correct that address pursuant to Sections
1229(a)(1)(F)(i)–(ii) and 1229a(b)(5)(B). See Mauricio-Benitez, 908 F.3d at
148. We find “no realistic possibility” the IJ or BIA would have reached a
17
Case: 20-60778 Document: 00516772621 Page: 18 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
No. 20-60778
different conclusion even if it had considered his written statement. See
Luna-Garcia, 932 F.3d at 291 (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Error also is alleged as to the bag and baggage letter. The BIA dis-
cussed the letter only in responding to Nivelo Cardenas’s arguments on ap-
peal and, thus, the discussion did not constitute an impermissible factual
finding. Regardless, even though the bag and baggage letter contained the
correct address, it does not contain a date, nor does it state by whom it was
created. Therefore, it does little to show Nivelo Cardenas timely corrected
with the immigration court the typographical error contained in the “Notifi-
cation Requirement for Change of Address” and Form I-830. Accordingly,
even if the BIA engaged in impermissible factfinding, affirmance is warranted
because “there is no realistic possibility” the bag and baggage letter could
prove Nivelo Cardenas timely corrected the error in his address through the
appropriate channels. See id.Another argument is that the BIA improperly made a fact-finding
about the meaning of the handwritten note on the returned notice of hearing
— “Please return it to the sender.” The BIA found that someone who re-
ceived the letter must have requested it be returned. Even if that finding was
in error, it would not warrant reconsideration. The finding is too insignificant
to have caused the BIA to have reached a different conclusion without it. See
id. The fact remains that Nivelo Cardenas did not correct the typographical
error.
Nivelo Cardenas also argues the BIA improperly considered due dili-
gence in its analysis. The BIA may consider an alien’s due diligence and the
credibility of the statements in the alien’s affidavit to determine whether the
presumption of effective service by regular mail was rebutted. Matter of M-
R-A, 24 I & N Dec. 665, 676 (BIA 2008); see also Mauricio-Benitez, 908 F.3d
at 150. In considering due diligence here, the BIA was addressing Nivelo
18
Case: 20-60778 Document: 00516772621 Page: 19 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
No. 20-60778
Cardenas’s contention in his affidavit that he checked his mailbox every day
for his Notice of Hearing. Consequently, the BIA did not commit reversible
error by considering Nivelo Cardenas’s due diligence for purposes of his mo-
tion to reopen for lack of notice. Either way, again, “there is no realistic pos-
sibility” the BIA would have reached a different conclusion absent the due
diligence analysis. See Luna-Garcia, 932 F.3d at 291 (quotation marks and
citation omitted).
In addition, Nivelo Cardenas contends the BIA failed to consider his
arguments that the IJ lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, he as-
serts subject matter jurisdiction did not exist because the Department of Hu-
man Services (“DHS”) failed to simultaneously serve an NTA on him when
DHS presented the NTA to the IJ, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.32 (2000)
and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a) (2000). 10 Nivelo Cardenas concedes, however,
that the lack of a simultaneous filing of the NTA here occurred in relation to
an in absentia hearing; thus, his cited regulations were not violated. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.32(a) (2000) (“Except in in absentia hearings, a copy of all doc-
uments (including proposed exhibits or applications) filed with or presented
to the [IJ] shall be simultaneously served by the presenting party on the op-
posing party or parties.”) (emphasis added); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a) (2003).
Additionally, Nivelo Cardenas maintains that subject matter jurisdic-
tion did not exist, because his NTA was void for willfully misrepresenting he
was given oral notice of the time and place of his hearing. We disagree. As
the Government explains, “if the date and time information is not yet known,
and Nivelo is informed of that fact, then he has been provided the ‘date and
time’ information as was known at the time and consistent with the” NTA.
10
8 C.F.R. § 3.14(a) (2000) was recodified as 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a) on February
28, 2003. 68 FR 9830 (Feb. 28, 2003).
19
Case: 20-60778 Document: 00516772621 Page: 20 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
No. 20-60778
We see no error in the BIA’s concluding it had subject matter jurisdiction
over the case, even if it did not specifically address each of Nivelo Cardenas’s
jurisdictional arguments.
The petition for review is DENIED.
20