Bykota Omobude v. US Attorney General

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Petitioner Bykota Agharese Omobude. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. Petition DENIED.

Case: 12-15969

Date Filed: 07/01/2013

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-15969
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A075-788-646
BYKOTA AGHARESE OMOBUDE,
Petitioner,
versus
US ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(July 1, 2013)
Before CARNES, WILSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Bykota Agharese Omobude petitions for review of the final order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal of the Immigration Judge’s
denial of her motion to reopen her in absentia order of removal.

Case: 12-15969

Date Filed: 07/01/2013

Page: 2 of 3

“We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion.”
Ali v. United States Att’y Gen., 443 F.3d 804, 808 (11th Cir. 2006). Our review of
an order entered in absentia is “confined to (i) the validity of the notice provided to
the alien, (ii) the reasons for the alien’s not attending the proceeding, and (iii)
whether or not the alien is removable.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(D).
Any alien who does not attend a proceeding is subject to removal in absentia
if the government establishes by “clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence”
that it gave the alien written notice of the time and place of the hearing. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(b)(5)(A); 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i). “[A] mailing to the last known
address [of the alien] is sufficient to satisfy the INS’s duty to provide an alien with
notice of a deportation proceeding.” United States v. Zelaya, 293 F.3d 1294, 1298
(11th Cir. 2002); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A). An in absentia removal order
may be rescinded “upon a motion to reopen . . . if the alien demonstrates that [she]
did not receive notice.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii).
Omobude’s sole argument on appeal is that she did not receive—and could
not have received—notice of the hearing because no such notice ever existed. She
bases this argument on her contention that the government failed to provide the
immigration court with the notice it allegedly sent to her. That contention is
incorrect. The administrative record contains a notice dated September 23, 1999

2

Case: 12-15969

Date Filed: 07/01/2013

Page: 3 of 3

that gives the date and location of the hearing and is marked as mailed to the
address provided by Omobude.
PETITION DENIED.

3