Jie Ma v. Loretta E. Lynch
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Jie Ma initially applied for asylum in 2001, claiming that Chinese authorities had persecuted him for practicing Zhong Gong, a spiritual movement based on breathing and meditation which is similar to the banned practice of Falun Gong. When Ma failed to appear at the hearing on his asylum application in 2002, an immigration judge (IJ) conducted the hearing in his absence and ordered his removal to China. Over eight years later, Ma moved to reopen his proceedings. He argued that his removal order should be rescinded because he did not receive notice that his hearing date had changed or, alternatively, that he should be permitted to reapply for asylum due to changed country conditions in China. An IJ denied Ma’s motion and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. We have jurisdiction under ' 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny in part and grant in part Ma’s petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Ma’s motion to reopen to rescind his in absentia removal order based on lack of notice. The agency satisfied notice requirements by sending a hearing notice by regular mail to the most recent address that Ma had provided. See Popa v. Holder, 571 F.3d…