Holding that alien's statement overcame presumption of effective service where no prior hearings scheduled, and alien had no motivation to avoid hearing
Holding that in considering a motion to reopen, "the central issue . . . is [not] whether the notice was properly mailed . . . but rather whether the alien actually received the notice
Holding that alien was charged with notice when alien's attorney was provided notice of hearing through certified mail in accordance with above provisions
Holding that when written notice is sent by regular, not certified, mail, the alien may prove that he did not receive the notice by his own statement in an affidavit
Holding that "clear and convincing" "evidence [is] required to overcome the presumption of receipt of certified mail correctly addressed and delivered to the home of the addressee"
Holding that pro se asylum applicant failed to show he never received notice of hearing when he only provided conclusory statement and did not put it in proper affidavit form
Holding that filing an application for asylum is evidence that "rebut the presumption that regular mail is delivered" and helps "prove that [the alien] did not receive the notice to appear"
Requiring DHS to establish that written notice of the time and place of proceedings, as well as the consequences of failure to appear, was provided to the alien