Hill, Susan E., Esq.

Hill, Plibe & Villegas

523 West Sixth Street, Suite 737
Los Angeles, CA 90014-0000
Name: SANCHEZ-PEREZ, MARGARITA
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Ofce fr Immigation Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Ofce of the Clerk
5107 Leesb1rg Pike, S1ite 2000
Fals Cl1rcl, Vrginia 22041
OHS/ICE Ofice of Chief Counsel LOS
606 S. Olive Street, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90014
A087-148-850
Date of this notice: 5/9/2012
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-refrenced case.
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Guendelsberger, John
Mann, Ana
Manuel, Elise L.
Sincerely,
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Margarita Sanchez-Perez, A087 148 850 (BIA May 9, 2012)
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
.
U.S. Depaent of Juc
EOfc for Im gon Re
FalChh Vu 2201
File: A087 148 850 - Ls Ageles, CA
Don o te B o Imgon A
Date:
MAY
- 9 2012
I re: MGATA SACH-PER a.k.a. Mgata Perez-Gbay
I ROVA PROCEDIGS
APEA
ON BE OF RESPONET: Sus E. HEsquire
The rsonde, a nave ad ct of Meco, was ordere reoved in absena on
Agst 24, 2010. O Febra 22, 2011, the respondent fle a moton to repen procegs, which
the Imgon Judge denie on Al 21, 2011. The responde fle a tmely appel of that
desion.. The apeal wl be sustaine, procegs wl be repene ad the reord wl b
rede.
Upon revew, we fnd that base upon the tot of circmces presented in ths cs,
including the chnge of te heag date fom Seteer 21, 2010, to Agust 24, 2010, t
resondent's af davit eplaining the circces srounding her flure to appe a the Agst
24, 2010, heng he atendac a pror heing, her diligenc og cunsl ad fling he
moton, a well a the fc that she h a approve 1-130 ad appeas to be elglle to adjus, we wl
repen pr ssg the repndent's appl of the I igo Judge's dena of the
moton under our de novo revie author. Accordingly, the respondet wl be provided the
opportunt to ate aother he.
ORER: The appe is se, procegs ae repene, ad the rerd is reded fr
fher proceings consistet w the aove opinion.
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Margarita Sanchez-Perez, A087 148 850 (BIA May 9, 2012)
File No.:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
IMMIGRATION COURT
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
A 087 148 850
In the Matter of:
)
)
)
SANCHEZ, Margarita
Respondent.
) IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
)
)
)
)
~ "
CHARGE: Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality:A} ("T)
-present without admission or parole
.
C

C
V~
^
o>
APPLICATION: Motion to Reopen
:5 .
>
o

)
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF THE D
Susan E. Hill, Esquire
Hill, Piibe, and Villegas, Attorneys at Law
523 West Sixth Street, Suite 737
Los Angeles, California 90014
Franklin Yu
Assistant Chief Counsel
Department of Homeland Security
606 South Olive Street, Eighth Floor
Los Angeles, California 90014
DECISION AND ORDER OF TllE IMMIGRATION JUDGE
y
I. Procedural Histor
\
!l
Margarita Sanchez ("respondent") is a native and citizen of Mexico. On September 30,
2009, the Department of I lomeland Security ("DI IS") served upon the respondent by regular
mail a Notice to Appear ("NT A'') charging her as removable under section 2 l 2(a)(6)(A)(i) of the
fNA. On November 5, 2009, the respondent appeared at her Master Calendar hearing before the
Court. The Court reminded the respondent of her obi igation to notify the Court of any change of
address within five working days of such change. The Court further provided her with Form
EOIR-33, Alien's Change of Address Form/Immigration Court, and directed her to use the frm
to notify the Court of her address change. The respondent indicated that she understood the
Court's instructions regarding a change of address. On August 4, 20 I 0, the Court maild a
notice of hearing to the respondent indicating that her case had been rescheduled to August 24,
20 I 0. On August 24, 20 I 0, the respondent failed to appear fr her scheduled hearing, and the
Court ordered her removed in absentia based upon evidence presented by the DHS. On February
22, 2011, the respondent filed the present motion to reopen alleging lack of notice. The OHS
filed a brief in opposition to the respondent's motion on Pebruary 28, 2011.
For the following reasons, the Court denies Respondent's motion to reopen.
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
II. Law and Analysis
An in absentia removal order may be rescinded by the Court upon a motion to reopen
filed at any time if the respondent demonstrates that she did not receive notice in accordance
with fNA 239(a). fNA 240(b)(5)(C)(ii). Written notice must be provided in person to the
respondent or, if personal service is not practicable, through service by mail to the respondent or
to the respondent's counsel of record, if any. lNA 239(a)(l). Once the NTA has been properly
served, the notice of hearing is deemed sufficient if mailed to the most recent address provided
by the respondent. See IA 240(b)(5)(A); Maller of G-Y-R-, 23 l&N Dec. 181, 185 (BIA
2001 ). Moreover, the respondent can be "properly charged with receiving notice, even though
[s]he did not personally see the mailed document." Maller of G-Y-R, 23 f&N Dec at 189.
Written notice of proceedings is not required if the respondent fails to provide the Court with a
written record of an address and telephone number at which she may be contacted. See lNA
240(b)(5)(B).
In the present matter, the respondent claims that she orally informed the Court of her
change in address. However, oral notice of a change of address is not sufficient under fNA
239(a)( l )(F). Moreover, the Court explicitly instructed the respondent to fll out the Fonn
EOIR-33 and fe it with the Court within fve days of a change of address. The Court did not
indicate that providing oral notice of a change of address would be sufficient; in fact, there is no
procedure for providing such notice. As the respondent filed to follow the Court's explicit
order to fil
.
e a Fo
r
:n EOl-33 with the Court upon_a change of adqess, hebal not to the
Court was msuffic1ent to infrm the Court of her change of address. fhus, sce of no

g
of hearing was proper because it was sent to the respondent's last known ad andf1e l
will not reopen proceedings based on lack of notice. fNA 240(b)(5)(A). g
~ ,)
Accordingly, the following order shall be entered:
ORDER
~ ! ~ ~I
"C
" . ::-,
o
::
r;:
.. : l
f ::.' ( :
T'
-
-~

I F C
...
,_
IT IS ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Reopen is DENIED.
DATE:
y--11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
lS DOCUMENT WAS SERVED B
[ LYIL (M) [ J PERSONAL SERVICE (P
TO: [ ] ALIEN ( 1 ALINE co Custodial Ofcer
[ iLIEN'S ATT/REP
.'
DATE: W- B CUR S

Attachments: [ ] EOIR-33
[ J legal Serices list t J Oe
2
Brett M. Parchert
Immigration Judge
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t