Background
Javier Antonio Amador-Ardon, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen his proceedings. Amador-Ardon sought to rescind his in absentia removal order, arguing he was in state custody at the time of his removal hearing. The Board of Immigration Appeals determined he failed to show his failure to appear was through no fault of his own, noting he had not provided his address to immigration authorities or the court after his release from apprehension and before being taken into state custody.
The court’s reasoning
The court found that the Board of Immigration Appeals made a factual determination that Amador-Ardon did not show his failure to appear was through no fault of his own. The court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the Board established a rule that failing to provide an address constitutes fault, clarifying the Board’s decision was based on the specific facts. The court also found the petitioner’s alternative arguments regarding factual error and lack of notice unavailing, as he failed to show the evidence compelled a conclusion contrary to the Board’s. The court further held that the Board did not engage in impermissible factfinding, as it did not develop a new record or choose between disputed facts. Finally, the court concluded Amador-Ardon did not demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the Board in upholding the immigration judge’s denial.
What it means going forward
The denial of the petition for review affirms the immigration judge’s denial of the motion to reopen and the rescission of the in absentia removal order, leaving the removal order in effect.