Martinez v. Holder , 556 F. App'x 709 ( 2014 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT February 26, 2014
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
HUGO LEONARDO MARTINEZ,
Petitioner,
v. No. 13-9576
(Petition for Review)
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., United States
Attorney General,
Respondent.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before GORSUCH, McKAY, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Hugo Leonardo Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of an
order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from a
decision by the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his motion to reopen his removal
proceedings. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we deny the
petition for review.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
I. Background
Mr. Martinez entered the United States illegally in 1992 at the age of fourteen.
He married a United States citizen in 1997 and filed an application for adjustment of
status based on the marriage. His wife also filed a Petition for Alien Relative in
conjunction with his application to adjust his status. The government denied both
applications and initiated removal proceedings.
The government mailed Mr. Martinez a Notice to Appear (NTA) together with
a notice that his application to adjust his status had been denied. The NTA and
denial notice were sent by certified mail to his address on file, and the return receipt
was signed by his wife. The immigration court also mailed Mr. Martinez a notice of
hearing (NOH) to that same address by regular mail.
Mr. Martinez failed to appear at the hearing and the IJ ordered him removed in
absentia based on information contained in the NTA and his application for
adjustment of status. Mr. Martinez was arrested and removed from the United States
in August of 1999. He illegally re-entered the country in February of 2000.
On July 25, 2012, almost thirteen years after his removal, Mr. Martinez
submitted a motion to reopen his removal proceedings, alleging that he had not
received the NTA or the NOH. An IJ denied the motion, and the BIA dismissed the
appeal from the IJ’s decision. Mr. Martinez now petitions for review of the BIA’s
decision.
-2-
II. Discussion
This court reviews for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to
reopen. Infanzon v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1359, 1362 (10th Cir. 2004). “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.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
In denying the motion to reopen, the IJ first concluded that Mr. Martinez could
be charged with properly receiving the NTA because it was sent by certified mail to
an address where he admitted he was living, and his wife signed the return receipt.
The IJ then explained that the NOH was sent by regular mail to the same address as
the NTA, which was the address Mr. Martinez had provided to immigration officials.
The IJ further explained that the NOH was not returned as undeliverable. The IJ
determined that these circumstances gave rise to a presumption of receipt, and that
Mr. Martinez had failed to overcome this presumption.
On appeal to the BIA, Mr. Martinez did not challenge the IJ’s conclusion that
he could be properly charged with receiving the NTA; he focused solely on his claim
that he had not received the NOH. The BIA agreed with the IJ that Mr. Martinez was
afforded proper notice of his hearing and that he failed to rebut the presumption of
delivery.
In his brief before this court, Mr. Martinez argues that the BIA abused its
discretion in denying his motion to reopen. He contends that the BIA did not
-3-
consider the totality of the evidence in concluding that he had failed to rebut the
presumption of delivery of the NOH.
The BIA has recognized “that a letter properly addressed, stamped, and mailed
is presumed to have been duly delivered to the addressee.” Matter of M-R-A-, 24 I. &
N. Dec. 665, 671 (BIA 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). The presumption of
delivery by regular mail, however, is “weaker” than the presumption of delivery by
certified mail. Id. at 673. To determine whether the presumption of regular mail
delivery has been rebutted, the agency may consider a variety of factors. See id. at
674 (identifying non-exhaustive list of seven factors). But “[t]he burden of
demonstrating the claimed lack of notice is on the alien.” Gurung v. Ashcroft, 371
F.3d 718, 722 (10th Cir. 2004).
Here, the BIA expressly considered two of the factors: the alien’s due
diligence in seeking to remedy the situation once he learned of the in absentia order,
and the alien’s incentive to appear because of a previously filed affirmative
application for relief. The BIA concluded that Mr. Martinez had not shown due
diligence in seeking to have his removal proceedings reopened because he waited
thirteen years to file his motion to reopen after being removed. And the BIA further
determined that Mr. Martinez did not have an incentive to appear at the hearing
because his application to adjust his status had been denied four months earlier. The
BIA also considered probative the IJ’s finding that Mr. Martinez had falsely stated in
his affidavit attached to his motion to reopen that he had never received an
-4-
appointment notice for his application to adjust his status. Given all of these
circumstances, the BIA agreed with the IJ that Mr. Martinez had not rebutted the
presumption of delivery of the NOH.
In his brief on appeal, Mr. Martinez concedes that he made an “incorrect”
statement that he had not received the appointment notice related to his application
for adjustment of status. Pet’r Br. at 23. But he claims that this is the only
inconsistency that the agency could point to in his affidavit. He then asserts that the
agency did not consider all of the facts of record, but he does not point to any
relevant facts that the agency failed to consider. Instead, he seeks to recast the
evidence in a light more favorable to his position. Although Mr. Martinez disagrees
with the BIA’s determination that he failed to rebut the presumption of delivery of
the NOH, the BIA’s decision provided a rational explanation supported by the
evidence in the record. Mr. Martinez has failed to demonstrate that the BIA abused
its discretion in denying his motion to reopen. Accordingly, we deny the petition for
review.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-5-