Except for this period of separation, petitioner and her husband have lived together for ten years. The common thread is that petitioner moved from Sheridan without fulfilling her obligation to change her address of record before the in absentia hearing took place. 1 There is no need to reconcile these varying accounts. Schultz’s home before receiving the hearing notices. Schultz at the Sheridan, Wyoming address. She then separated from her husband to live with Mr. Petitioner argues that her motion to reopen was improperly denied, because she had no notice of the immigration hearing.Īs background information, petitioner explains that she married her United States citizen husband, Larry Branson, before her visa expired. “The BIA abuses its discretion when its decision provides no rational explanation, inexplicably departs from established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory statements.” Gurung v. This court reviews the agency’s decision on a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Petitioner appealed to the BIA, which summarily affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision without opinion. He therefore denied the motion to reopen. She has not satisfied the statutory requirements for reopening.” Id. The notice was served at the proper address. The Immigration Judge determined that petitioner “was given every opportunity to attend. More than three years later, petitioner filed a motion to reopen the in absentia proceeding. Schultz visited the INS office in Casper, Wyoming, to state that petitioner had moved out and he did not know her current address. Later, it was returned to the Immigration Court with a handwritten “return-to-ender” designation. A copy of the order was sent to petitioner at the same address. The Immigration Judge proceeded in absentia, found that petitioner was deportable as charged, and ordered her deported to Honduras. Petitioner again failed to appear for her hearing. A second hearing notice was sent to petitioner at the same address and it, too, was received and signed for by Mr. Schultz. Rather than proceeding in absentia, the Immigration Judge adjourned the hearing to February 1, 1996, giving petitioner a second chance to appear. Petitioner did not appear for the hearing. The notice was received and signed for by an individual named Frank Schultz. Box 6524, Sheridan, Wyoming.Ī hearing notice was sent by certified mail to that address, advising petitioner of an immigration hearing scheduled for January 18, 1996, in Denver, Colorado. Petitioner provided the mailing address of P.O. The Order also stated that petitioner was “required by law to provide immediately in writing an address (and telephone number, if any) where could be reached” and notice of the hearing would be mailed only to the last address provided by petitioner. It warned that if she failed to appear, she would “be ordered deported in absence if it is established that deportable and been provided the appropriate notice of the hearing.” Admin. The Order, which was written in both English and Spanish, charged her with deportability and informed her that she would be required to appear for a hearing to be calendared and noticed at a later date. She overstayed the duration of the visa and, on September 6, 1995, she was personally served with an Order to Show Cause. Petitioner was admitted to the United States on July 7, 1994, on a six-month nonimmigrant visa. This court affirms the denial of the BIA’s order and, for lack of jurisdiction, does not consider petitioner’s alternative claim for relief. Petitioner Lesly Aracely Coello-Amador, a native and citizen of Honduras, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings and also challenges the BIA’s refusal to exercise its sua sponte power to reopen proceedings. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Before EBEL, BALDOCK, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.Īfter examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument.