Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves petitioners challenging the Board of Immigration Appeals’ affirmation of an Immigration Judge's in absentia removal order. The petitioners, a family present in the U.S. without legal admission, were ordered removed under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) after failing to attend their removal hearing. They argued that a misunderstanding of the hearing date, attributed to linguistic limitations, constituted 'exceptional circumstances' under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i) warranting reopening of proceedings. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing that misunderstandings about scheduling do not meet the statutory standard for exceptional circumstances. The court further held that due process was not violated by providing notice in English, as the petitioners had previously engaged with English notices effectively. The court affirmed that it is permissible for an immigration judge to issue an in absentia removal order when notice has been properly served and the alien fails to appear. The decision was affirmed and is unpublished, in accordance with 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Due Process in Immigration Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The issuance of an in absentia order did not violate due process as the Salazars received proper notice and failed to demonstrate entitlement to relief.
Reasoning: Furthermore, the court found no due process violation in issuing an in absentia order after proper notice was given, affirming that an immigration judge must proceed with an in absentia order if an alien fails to appear after receiving notice.
Exceptional Circumstances for Reopening Removal Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The misunderstanding of the hearing date abbreviation did not meet the threshold for 'exceptional circumstances' to reopen proceedings.
Reasoning: Misunderstandings regarding hearing schedules alone are insufficient for relief, as established in previous cases.
In Absentia Removal Orderssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the in absentia removal order as the Salazars failed to appear at their hearing despite receiving proper notice.
Reasoning: The court denied the petition, stating that the Salazars' misunderstanding does not qualify as 'exceptional circumstances' necessary to reopen removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i).
Notice Requirements for Immigration Hearingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Notice provided in English was deemed sufficient, as the Salazars had previously responded to English notices, thus suggesting they were adequately informed.
Reasoning: The court clarified that an alien has no due process right to have hearing notices in their native language and that notice in English is adequate if it reasonably informs the petitioner.