From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nunez-Flores v. Lynch

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Mar 4, 2016
633 F. App'x 433 (9th Cir. 2016)

Opinion

No. 13-72103

03-04-2016

TOMAS NUNEZ-FLORES, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH Respondent.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Agency No. A077-133-687 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted February 12, 2016 San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and ADELMAN, District Judge.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The Honorable Lynn S. Adelman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting by designation. --------

Petitioner Tomas Nunez-Flores seeks judicial review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' refusal to reopen and rescind an in absentia removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). The Board did not abuse its discretion in determining that, because petitioner failed to provide a valid mailing address, written notice of his removal hearing was not required. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(2)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.26(d); see also Velasquez-Escovar v. Holder, 768 F.3d 1000, 1004 (9th Cir. 2014) (explaining that, in order retain their right to notice, aliens must provide an address at which they may be contacted regarding the removal proceeding). The Postal Service returned the hearing notice with the notation, "No Mail Receptacle, Unable to Forward," which means the "Addressee failed to provide a receptacle for receipt of mail." http://pe.usps.com/archive/html/dmmarchive0810/F010.htm (last visited Feb. 22, 2016). Petitioner relies on Sabir v. Gonzales, 421 F.3d 456 (7th Cir. 2005) to argue that he was not at fault for the mail delivery failure. However, unlike the alien in Sabir, petitioner presented no evidence of mail delivery problems at his residence (e.g., that someone stole or vandalized his mailbox or bad weather knocked it down), and the record shows that other documents mailed by immigration authorities to the address petitioner provided were returned with this same notation, which supports the finding that petitioner failed to provide an address where he could receive mail.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Summaries of

Nunez-Flores v. Lynch

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Mar 4, 2016
633 F. App'x 433 (9th Cir. 2016)
Case details for

Nunez-Flores v. Lynch

Case Details

Full title:TOMAS NUNEZ-FLORES, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Mar 4, 2016

Citations

633 F. App'x 433 (9th Cir. 2016)