Background
Lorenzo Neftali Cruz-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision. The Board had dismissed his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings to seek rescission of his in absentia removal order. The petitioner argued the initial Notice to Appear was defective because it did not specify the date and time of the hearing.
The court’s reasoning
The panel concluded that under Campos-Chaves v. Garland, a defective Notice to Appear does not render a noncitizen eligible for rescission if they were later given a written notice including the time, place, and consequences of failing to attend. The petitioner’s briefing did not contest that the agency sent such a notice. The court noted the government sent the notice to an incorrect address due to a clerical error but found the petitioner’s counsel conceded the notice was sent to the address the petitioner provided. The court declined to reach whether the notice was reasonably calculated to inform the petitioner, noting the government’s brief contained conflicting statements about the address.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that noncitizens cannot rely solely on a defective initial Notice to Appear to rescind an in absentia removal order if a subsequent notice was provided, even if that notice contained a clerical error regarding the address.