Alvarado-Arenas v. Sessions, No. 15-2987 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, a citizen of Mexico, challenged the denial of his motion to reopen an order of removal in absentia when he failed to appear for a removal hearing in an immigration court. The court concluded that petitioner failed to develop an argument explaining why his failure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(5)(C). Assuming for the sake of analysis that petitioner's alleged absence from the United States could be an exceptional circumstance, the court concluded that the Board reasonably determined that petitioner was in the United States when the Department filed the Notice to Appear to initiate the removal proceedings, and the Board gave reasonable weight to the fact that petitioner's counsel verified the accuracy of the address and made no objection to the immigration court's jurisdiction.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Melloy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner's motion to reopen; by statute, an order removing an alien in absentia for failure to appear may only be rescinded if the motion to reopen shows either that the alien's failure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances or the alien did not receive proper notice; assuming petitioner's alleged absence from the U.S. could be an exceptional circumstance, the BIA reasonably concluded petitioner was in the U.S. when the removal proceedings were commenced and thus had notice of the proceedings.
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.