MANDY LIEMMERTZ V. MATTHEW WHITAKER, No. 16-73253 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 19 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MANDY VIENNA STERMINT LIEMMERTZ, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-73253 Agency No. A095-883-625 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 17, 2018** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Mandy Vienna Stermint Liemmertz, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her motion * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Petitioner’s request for oral arguments, raised in her opening brief, is denied. to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. The agency did not err or abuse its discretion in denying Liemmertz’s motion to reopen based on lack of notice. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (motion to reopen in absentia proceedings may be filed at any time if alien did not receive proper notice). The IJ personally served the notice of hearing on Liemmertz’s attorney of record, and the notice contained sufficient advisals regarding the consequences of failing to appear. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(2)(A) (setting forth notice requirements); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.26(c)(2) (notice is sufficient for in absentia purposes when “written notice of the time and place of proceedings and written notice of the consequences of failure to appear were provided to the alien or the alien’s counsel of record”); Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000) (no due process violation where written notice was personally served on petitioners’ counsel, in petitioners’ presence, in court at the master calendar hearing). We reject Liemmertz’s unsupported contention that her notice of hearing was insufficient under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(2)(A)(ii) because it did not inform her of the scope of judicial review of an in absentia order. We do not reach Liemmertz’s contention regarding the IJ’s determination 2 that she filed a frivolous asylum application because it is outside the scope of our review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(D) (judicial review of an in absentia removal order is limited to “(i) the validity of the notice provided to the alien, (ii) the reasons for the alien’s not attending the proceeding, and (iii) whether or not the alien is removable.”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 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.
