Jorge Alaniz-Huete v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [13-60346 Affirmed ] Judge: WED , Judge: FPB , Judge: ECP Mandate pull date is 04/28/2014 [13-60346]

Case: 13-60346

Document: 00512553283

Page: 1

Date Filed: 03/07/2014

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

No. 13-60346
Summary Calendar

FILED
March 7, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

JORGE ULISES ALANIZ-HUETE,
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. A098 685 484
Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

Jorge Ulises Alaniz-Huete (Alaniz), a native and citizen of Nicaragua,
petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA),
which dismissed his appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of a motion to
reopen his in absentia removal proceeding. He argues that the in absentia
removal order was improper because an incomplete address was used to serve
the notice and it was not his fault that the file contained an incomplete address.

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-60346

Document: 00512553283

Page: 2

Date Filed: 03/07/2014

No. 13-60346
As the BIA determined, the notice to appear (NTA), which was personally

served on Alaniz and which he signed, contains the address to which the
hearing notice was mailed. The NTA advised Alaniz of his obligation to apprise
the court of his full mailing address, and he was also advised of the
consequences of his failure to appear at a hearing. The record is devoid of
evidence that indicates that Alaniz attempted to notify the immigration court
that the address on the NTA was incomplete or incorrect. Alaniz therefore did
not comply with his obligation to keep his address current and his failure to do
so precludes him from obtaining relief.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii)

(providing for rescission of a removal order only when failure to appear was
through no fault of the alien); Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 360-61
(5th Cir. 2009) (affirming the BIA’s denial of an appeal from an in absentia
removal when the alien failed to comply with his obligation to provide current
address information).

The BIA’s ruling therefore was not an abuse of

discretion. See § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii); Gomez-Palacios, 560 F.3d at 358. The
petition for review is DENIED.

2