Featured Chrome Extensions:

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

statuteappealhearingmotionvisa
statuteappealhearingmotionvisa

Related Cases

He v. Gonzales
View Case »
Perez-Oropeza v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd.
View Case »
Echavarria v. Pitts
View Case »
Barron v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Ledesma-Sanchez v. Lynch

Facts

Jonathan Ledesma-S�hez, a Dominican Republic native, was admitted to the U.S. on a nonimmigrant visa but overstayed. He was served with a Notice to Appear in March 2010, which required him to provide his current address to immigration authorities. After moving from Roxbury to Dorchester in October 2010 without updating his address, he did not receive notice of his removal hearing scheduled for March 2011 and was ordered removed in absentia after failing to appear. In August 2012, he sought to reopen the proceedings, claiming he did not receive notice.

Jonathan Ledesma-S�hez was born in the Dominican Republic and admitted to the United States on a nonimmigrant visa. He allegedly overstayed that visa. In March of 2010, a federal official personally served Ledesma with what is known as a Notice to Appear. That document charged Ledesma with being removable from the United States for overstaying a nonimmigrant visa. See 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(B). And the Notice to Appear ordered Ledesma to appear before an immigration judge in Boston to adjudicate his removability, at a date and time to be set. After being served with the Notice to Appear, Ledesma resided for a time — as immigration officials were informed — at an address in the Roxbury neighborhood of Boston, Massachusetts. But in October of 2010, Ledesma moved to a new address in the Dorchester neighborhood of Boston without updating his address with immigration officials. In February of 2011, the Department of Homeland Security filed Ledesma's Notice to Appear with the immigration court in Boston. The court then scheduled removal proceedings for March 1, 2011. The immigration court sent notice of the hearing to Ledesma's old address in Roxbury. Ledesma claims, and the government does not dispute, he did not actually receive notice of the hearing because none was sent to his Dorchester address. Ledesma did not appear at the hearing. He was ordered removed in absentia.

Issue

Whether Ledesma-Sanchez was entitled to reopen his removal proceedings based on his claim of not receiving notice of the hearing.

Whether Ledesma-Sanchez was entitled to reopen his removal proceedings based on his claim of not receiving notice of the hearing.

Rule

An in absentia removal order may be rescinded if the alien demonstrates that he did not receive notice in accordance with 8 U.S.C. 1229(a). However, the alien must have complied with the statutory requirement to keep immigration authorities informed of his address.

An in absentia removal order may be rescinded if the alien demonstrates that he did not receive notice in accordance with 8 U.S.C. 1229(a). However, the alien must have complied with the statutory requirement to keep immigration authorities informed of his address.

Analysis

The court found that Ledesma-Sanchez could not demonstrate that he did not receive notice as required by the statute because he failed to inform immigration authorities of his new address. The government had sent notice to his last known address, and the court emphasized that the responsibility to update the address lay with the alien. The court noted that the statute does not require the government to provide notice to an address that the alien has not provided.

The court found that Ledesma-Sanchez could not demonstrate that he did not receive notice as required by the statute because he failed to inform immigration authorities of his new address. The government had sent notice to his last known address, and the court emphasized that the responsibility to update the address lay with the alien. The court noted that the statute does not require the government to provide notice to an address that the alien has not provided.

Conclusion

The court denied Ledesma-Sanchez's petition for review, affirming the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals to deny his motion to reopen the removal proceedings.

The court denied Ledesma-Sanchez's petition for review, affirming the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals to deny his motion to reopen the removal proceedings.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because Ledesma-Sanchez did not fulfill his obligation to keep immigration authorities informed of his address, which led to the denial of his motion to reopen.

The government prevailed in the case because Ledesma-Sanchez did not fulfill his obligation to keep immigration authorities informed of his address, which led to the denial of his motion to reopen.

You must be