Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statutehearingvisa

statutehearingvisarespondentliens

Related Cases

Dragomirescu v. United States AG

Facts

Andrei Dragomirescu, a native and citizen of Romania, entered the U.S. in 1998 and was a conditional permanent resident until his status was terminated in 2015. In January 2016, he received a notice to appear for removal proceedings at his then-current address but later moved without informing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). As a result, he did not receive the notice of his removal hearing and was ordered removed in absentia in November 2017. Dragomirescu later sought to reopen his removal proceedings, claiming he did not receive the necessary notices.

In January 2016, DHS sent Dragomirescu a notice to appear initiating his removal proceedings. DHS sent the notice by regular mail to Dragomirescu's then-current address in Marietta, Georgia. The notice to appear informed Dragomirescu that DHS was charging him as removable and that his removal hearing would be held at a time and place 'to be set.' It also contained a series of advisals about Dragomirescu's responsibility to keep his address up-to-date with the agency and the potential consequences that might follow if he did not.

Issue

Did Dragomirescu receive the required notice to appear, and was his removal in absentia proper under the Immigration and Nationality Act?

Dragomirescu argues that the immigration judge improperly ordered him removed in violation of the INA's requirements for in absentia removal.

Rule

Under 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(5)(B), an alien can be ordered removed in absentia if they fail to provide their updated address after receiving a notice to appear that includes advisals about the necessity of keeping their address current.

The INA sets out an intricate set of procedures for the removal of aliens unlawfully present in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. 1229 , 1229a .

Analysis

The court determined that Dragomirescu had received the initial notice to appear, which included advisals about updating his address. Since he failed to inform DHS of his new address after moving, he was deemed responsible for not receiving the subsequent notice of hearing. The court upheld the Board's finding that Dragomirescu's removal in absentia was justified under the exception clause of the statute.

The answer to that question is yes. Although he argues otherwise, the record shows that Dragomirescu received the notice to appear DHS sent him in January 2016. DHS sent the notice by regular mail to Dragomirescu's then-current address in Marietta, Georgia.

Conclusion

The court denied Dragomirescu's petition to reopen his removal proceedings, affirming that he was properly ordered removed in absentia due to his failure to keep DHS informed of his address.

After Dragomirescu received his notice to appear at his then-current address in Marietta, there is no dispute that he later moved and failed to inform DHS of his new addresswhich is why he failed to receive the notice of hearing the immigration court later sent to the same address. Because Dragomirescu 'failed to provide the address required under section 1229(a)(1)(F),' he was properly ordered removed under the in absentia statute's exception clause. 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(5)(B).

Who won?

The United States government prevailed in the case because Dragomirescu failed to comply with the requirement to keep his address updated, which led to his non-receipt of the notice of hearing.

The Board found that 'the evidence show[ed] that the respondent received' the initial notice to appear that 'informed him of the necessity of informing the Court if his address changed.'

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Kalezic v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Mortera-Cruz v. Gonzales

Bell v. Reno

Garcia-Esquivel; U.S. v.

Hines v. Davidowitz