Cruz-Gomez v. Lynch, No. 14-3989 (6th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCruz-Gomez was admitted to the United States in 2006 on a temporary work visa. He remained in the U.S. after his visa expired, and DHS initiated removal proceedings. Cruz-Gomez appeared with counsel, conceded that he was removable as charged, and claimed that he would seek asylum and withholding of removal. The IJ notified Cruz-Gomez and his counsel that he would schedule two further hearings—a master calendar hearing on March 12, 2013, and an individual hearing on August 8, 2013. Neither Cruz-Gomez nor his counsel appeared at the March 12 hearing. The hearing was conducted in absentia and Cruz-Gomez was ordered to be removed to Mexico. On July 16, Cruz-Gomez, represented by new counsel, moved to reopen his proceedings, arguing that he received notice only of the August 8 hearing. On August 22, the IJ denied the motion, finding that Cruz-Gomez’s claim that he did not know about the March 12 hearing was “not correct” because Cruz-Gomez was “specifically told” about both hearing dates through a Spanish interpreter; that Cruz-Gomez’s counsel was provided with written notices of the two hearings. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed an appeal. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.
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.