Case: 13-60430 Document: 00512560294 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/13/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 13-60430 March 13, 2014
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
MARIANO BELISARIO GONZALEZ-LOPEZ,
Petitioner
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A200 000 339
Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Petitioner Mariano Belisario Gonzalez-Lopez, a native and citizen of El
Salvador, has filed a petition for review of the decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the denial of his motion to
reopen his deportation proceedings after he was ordered removed in absentia.
He contends that the immigration judge erred in denying his motion to reopen
because he did not receive notice of his removal hearing and that the
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 13-60430 Document: 00512560294 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/13/2014
No. 13-60430
immigration judge should have considered the factors set forth in Matter of M-
R-A-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 665 (BIA 2008), to determine whether reopening his case
was warranted.
“In reviewing the denial of a motion to reopen, this court applies a highly
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, regardless of the basis of the alien’s
request for relief.” Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 358 (5th Cir. 2009).
We will “affirm the BIA’s decision as long as it is not capricious, without
foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather
than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” Id.
To comply with the statutory requirements, a notice to appear must
inform the alien of his obligation to provide a current address and phone
number, his obligation to provide any change of address, the consequences for
failing to provide an address and phone number, the time and date of the
hearing, and the consequences for failing to appear. 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(F)-
(G). It need not include the specific time and date of a removal hearing,
however, if that information is provided in a subsequent notice of hearing.
Gomez-Palacios, 560 F.3d at 359. An alien is not entitled to notice if he fails
to provide the address information required under § 1229(a)(1)(F) and may be
removed in absentia if he fails to appear. § 1229(a)(2)(B); 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(b)(5)(A) & (B).
In June 2005 the Petitioner was personally served with a notice to
appear that in all things complied with the statutory requirements of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229(a)(1)(F)-(G), save the specific time and date of his removal hearing. It
is undisputed that Petitioner failed to provide the address information
required under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(F). No further notice was required to
remove Gonzalez-Lopez in absentia. Gonzalez-Lopez’s reliance upon Matter of
M-R-A-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 668, is thus misplaced, as it concerns the
2
Case: 13-60430 Document: 00512560294 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/13/2014
No. 13-60430
presumption that a notice is received at the address to which it is mailed, facts
not at issue here. No abuse of discretion has been shown in the denial of the
motion to reopen.
Gonzalez-Lopez’s petition for review is DENIED.
3