Diaz v. Lynch, No. 15-3195 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, a citizen of El Salvador, moved to reopen an in absentia removal order, arguing he never received the Notice of Hearing. Alternatively, he moved to reopen to apply for asylum. The IJ denied both motions and the BIA affirmed. The court concluded that petitioner's affidavit claiming that he never received the Notice of Hearing is insufficient to overcome the presumption of delivery. The court also concluded that there is no error in denying the motion to reopen where petitioner did not file his motion until two years after the IJ entered the order of removal. Therefore, the motion to reopen is time-barred, and petitioner failed to demonstrate a change in conditions between the 2011 hearing and his 2013 motion. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review.
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. In challenge to in abstentia removal order, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining petitioner had failed to rebut the presumption that the mailed notice of the removal hearing was delivered; no error in denying motion to reopen to apply for asylum as the motion was time-barred. Home | Contact Us | Employment | Glossary of Legal Terms | Site Map | RSS Privacy Policy|BrowseAloud
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.