Vilma Andrade-De Alfaro v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 10-12208 (11th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS U.S. ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 10-12208 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ DEC 02, 2010 JOHN LEY CLERK Agency No. A094-798-783 VILMA ARELY ANDRADE-DE ALFARO, lllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, lllllllllllllllllllll Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (December 2, 2010) Before BARKETT, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Vilma Arely Andrade-De Alfaro, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals that affirmed the denial of her motion to reopen her removal proceedings. We deny the petition. On February 17, 2009, the immigration judge notified De Alfaro that her removal hearing would be held on March 19, 2009. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a). De Alfaro moved for a continuance on the ground that her attorney had a conflict in his schedule, but the immigration judge did not rule on De Alfaro s motion before the hearing. De Alfaro did not appear for her removal hearing, and the immigration judge denied De Alfaro s motion to continue and ordered her removed from the United States in absentia, id. § 1229a(b)(5)(A). De Alfaro moved to reopen her removal proceedings, but the immigration judge denied the motion. The Board found appropriate the decisions of the immigration judge to deny De Alfaro s motion for a continuance and to order her removed in absentia. The Board did not abuse its discretion by affirming the denial of De Alfaro s motion to reopen her removal hearing. De Alfaro s failure to appear at her removal hearing was not attributable to exceptional circumstances beyond her control. See id. §§ 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i), (e)(1). De Alfaro received notice of her removal hearing and, although her attorney could not attend because of a conflict, De Alfaro does not assert that she could not appear at the hearing. De Alfaro 2 argues that she failed to attend at the instruction of the staff of her attorney, but she does not argue that conduct amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. See Dakane v. U.S. Att y Gen., 399 F.3d 1269, 1274 75 (11th Cir. 2005). De Alfaro failed to present evidence of circumstances so compelling that she would be entitled to reopen her removal proceedings. We DENY De Alfaro s petition. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
