Campos-Chaves v. Garland, No. 20-60262 (5th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

Petitioner petitioned for review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals, dismissing his appeal from the decision of the immigration judge (“IJ”) to deny his motion to reopen. Petitioner illegally entered the United States, at Laredo, Texas. The Government filed a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) in immigration court and charged Petitioner as removable under 8 U.S.C. Section 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Petitioner did not appear and was ordered removed in absentia.
 
Petitioner contends the Fifth Circuit should remand the matter to the Board for reconsideration of his NTA challenge in light of Rodriguez v. Garland, 15 F.4th 351 (5th Cir. 2021). The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review. The court explained that here, in contrast to Rodriguez, Petitioner received the NTA and does not dispute that he also received the subsequent notice of hearing (NOH). The fact that Petitioner received the NOH (or does not dispute receiving the NOH) makes Rodriguez distinguishable.

Download PDF
Case: 20-60262 Document: 00516418448 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/03/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 3, 2022 No. 20-60262 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Moris Esmelis Campos-Chaves, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A098 793 655 Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: Moris Campos-Chaves petitions for review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals, dismissing his appeal from the decision of the immigration judge (“IJ”) to deny his motion to reopen. Petitioner is a native and citizen of El Salvador who illegally entered the United States on January 24, 2005, at Laredo, Texas. On February 10, 2005, the Government filed a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) in immigration court and charged petitioner as removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Petitioner did not appear and was ordered removed in absentia. Case: 20-60262 Document: 00516418448 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/03/2022 No. 20-60262 On September 18, 2018, petitioner filed a motion to reopen. He principally contended that the IJ lacked authority to conduct the removal proceedings because the NTA was defective. Petitioner submitted an affidavit in which he stated that he received the NTA but that it did not contain the date and time of his removal proceedings. Now he contends that we should remand the matter to the Board for reconsideration of his NTA challenge in light of Rodriguez v. Garland, 15 F.4th 351 (5th Cir. 2021). We disagree. In Rodriguez, the alien received an undated NTA but did not receive a subsequent notice of hearing (“NOH”) because he moved. Here, by contrast, petitioner received the NTA and does not dispute that he also received the subsequent NOH. See Red Br. 9 n.3. The fact that petitioner received the NOH (or does not dispute receiving the NOH) makes Rodriguez distinguishable. Indeed, we have held that aliens are not entitled to Rodriguez remands where they failed to provide their address to the Department of Homeland Security. See Spangol-Bastos v. Garland, 19 F.4th 802, 807-08 (5th Cir. 2021); Correa Dos Santos v. Garland, No. 21-60791 (June 17, 2022). If an alien forfeits his right to a Rodriguez remand by not giving the Government a good address, then a fortiori the alien forfeits his right to a Rodriguez remand when he in fact receives the NOH (or does not dispute receiving it). The petition for review is DENIED. All pending motions are DENIED. 2
Primary Holding
The Fifth Circuit denied Petitioner’s review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals, dismissing his appeal from the decision of the immigration judge (“IJ”) to deny his motion to reopen.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.