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

hearingaffidavitmotiontrust
hearingaffidavitmotiontrust

Related Cases

Haider v. Gonzales
View Case »
Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Kerr-McGee Corp.
View Case »
Muigai v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Ovchinnikov v. Clark
View Case »
U.S. v. Di Pietro
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Spagnol-Bastos v. Garland

Facts

Manoel Spagnol-Bastos, a Brazilian citizen, was apprehended after illegally entering the U.S. and was ordered to provide a mailing address for his removal hearing. He provided a deficient address, resulting in him not receiving notice of the hearing and being ordered removed in absentia. Eighteen years later, he filed a motion to reopen the proceedings, claiming he did not receive notice, but the immigration judge denied his motion, stating he forfeited his right to notice by not providing a viable address.

Manoel Spagnol-Bastos, a Brazilian citizen, was apprehended after illegally entering the U.S. and was ordered to provide a mailing address for his removal hearing. He provided a deficient address, resulting in him not receiving notice of the hearing and being ordered removed in absentia. Eighteen years later, he filed a motion to reopen the proceedings, claiming he did not receive notice, but the immigration judge denied his motion, stating he forfeited his right to notice by not providing a viable address.

Issue

Did the BIA and immigration judge abuse their discretion in denying Spagnol-Bastos's motion to rescind the removal order based on his failure to provide a correct address for notice?

Did the BIA and immigration judge abuse their discretion in denying Spagnol-Bastos's motion to rescind the removal order based on his failure to provide a correct address for notice?

Rule

An alien subject to removal proceedings must provide a viable mailing address to receive notice of the proceedings; failure to do so results in forfeiture of the right to notice under 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(5)(B).

An alien subject to removal proceedings must provide a viable mailing address to receive notice of the proceedings; failure to do so results in forfeiture of the right to notice under 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(5)(B).

Analysis

The court found that the immigration judge did not abuse discretion in concluding that Spagnol-Bastos forfeited his right to notice by providing a deficient address. The judge deemed Spagnol-Bastos's affidavit untrustworthy and determined that the notice was mailed to the address he provided, thus any failure to receive notice was attributable to his own actions.

The court found that the immigration judge did not abuse discretion in concluding that Spagnol-Bastos forfeited his right to notice by providing a deficient address. The judge deemed Spagnol-Bastos's affidavit untrustworthy and determined that the notice was mailed to the address he provided, thus any failure to receive notice was attributable to his own actions.

Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit denied Spagnol-Bastos's petition for review, affirming the BIA's decision that he forfeited his right to notice and was ineligible for cancellation of removal.

The Fifth Circuit denied Spagnol-Bastos's petition for review, affirming the BIA's decision that he forfeited his right to notice and was ineligible for cancellation of removal.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case as the court upheld the BIA's decision, concluding that Spagnol-Bastos forfeited his right to notice due to his failure to provide a correct address.

The government prevailed in the case as the court upheld the BIA's decision, concluding that Spagnol-Bastos forfeited his right to notice due to his failure to provide a correct address.

You must be