Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Department of Justice
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.
Sincerely,
Cynthia L. Crosby
Deputy Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Kelly, Edward F.
Grant, Edward R.
Mann, Ana
Usertea m: Docket
Cite as: Keila Isabel Reyes-De Romero, A206 698 059 (BIA June 8, 2017)
U.S. Department of Justice Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Executive Office for Immigration Review
JUN - 8 2017
File: A206 698 059 - Houston, TX Date:
APPEAL
APPLICATION: Reopening
The respondent, a native and citizen of El Salvador, was ordered removed from the United
States in absentia on August 11, 2016, after not appearing at a hearing. She filed a motion to
reopen on September 27, 2016, and appeals from the hnmigration Judge's decision dated
December 15, 2016, denying her motion. The appeal will be sustained.
We review Immigration Judges' findings offact for clear error, but questions oflaw, discretion,
and judgment, and all other issues in appeals, de novo. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(i), (ii).
On appeal, the respondent argues that she did not receive the Notice of Hearing. See Matter
of M-R-A-, 24 l&N Dec. 665, 675 (BIA 2008) (setting forth the factors for rebutting the
presumption of delivery ofregular mail). The Notice ofHearing was mailed to the address stated
by the respondent on her February 2016, Form EOIR.-33/IC, and the notice was not returned to
the hnmigration Court as undeliverable (Exh. 4). However, the respondent filed her motion to
reopen with due diligence, provided a detailed affidavit with corroborating evidence, and appears
to have been diligent regarding her obligations to the hnmigration Court and the Department of
Homeland Security. She also has a child who appears to have a case pending before the
hnmigration Court, an incentive for the respondent to appear at the hearing. In light of the
foregoing, the respondent has rebutted the presumption that she received the Notice of Hearing,
and we will reopen and remand these proceedings based on lack of notice. On remand, the
hnmigration Judge shall change venue to Baltimore, MD.
ORDER: The appeal is sustained, the in absentia order of removal is vacated, and these
proceedings are reopened and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing
opinion.
Cite as: Keila Isabel Reyes-De Romero, A206 698 059 (BIA June 8, 2017)
(
f1P".
Respondent.
ORDER ONMOTION
1
(
. A 206-698-059
On July 14, 2015, the Court sent Respondent a Notice of Hearing (NOH) ordering
her to appear before the Court on November 29, 2019. See Notice of Hearing (July 14,
2015). The hearing notice was mailed to the address on record, and was not returned as
undeliverable. Id.
On May 26, 2016, the Court sent Respondent a Notice of Hearing ordering her to
appear before the Court on July 28, 2016 at 1:00 p.m. See Notice of Hearing (May 26,
2016). The hearing notice was mailed to the address on record, and was not returned as
2
A 206-698-059
. When written notice is properly addressed and sent to the alien by regular mail
according to normal office procedures,a presumption of delivery arises. Matter of M-R
A-, 24 I&N Dec. 665, 673 (BIA 2008). Once the presumption of delivery arises, the
burden is on the alien to provide proof that the document was not received. Id. at 674.
The Court may consider all relevant evidence of record to overcome the presumption of
delivery. Id. at 673-74. Evidence may include,but is not limited to:
1
Respondent listed her address as 1612 Veirs Mill Rd. Silver Spring, MD 20902.
3
A 206-698-059
v. Halder, 560 F.3d 354, 359-60 (5th Cir. 2009). Her NOH was mailed to Respondent's
most recent address of record2 according to normal office procedures. Thus, a
preswnption of delivery arises. See Matter of M-R-A-, 24 I&N Dec. at 673. The Court
must consider all evidence submitted by Respondent to overcome the presumption of
delivery. Id. at 674-75.
The Court finds that the evidence in the record is not enough to overcome the
2
The Court wishes to make clear that the address filed with the Court on February 18, 2016 (1612 Veirs
Mill Rd. Silver Spring, MD 20902) was the most recent address of record at the time of the hearing on
August 11, 2016. At the time of filing this motion on September 27, 2016, Respondent filed a newEOIR-
33/IC listing her address as 3306 Tapestry Cir. Burtonsville, :MD 20866.
4
A 206-698-059
ORDER