Jose Flores-Chavez v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General

Good Law
362 F.3d 1150·2004 WL 583727·2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 5572
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 25, 200401-70748California5,988 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wardlaw, J.

Jose Flores-Chavez was fifteen years old when the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) detained him for illegally entering the United States and then released him into the custody of an adult relative. Although the adult relative was presumed to take responsibility for Flores’ appearance at his deportation hearing, see 8 C.F.R. §§ 242.24 (b)(3)-(4) (1993), the agency did not serve the adult with the Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) and Notice of Hearing. Instead, the INS served only Flores with the OSC and the information specifying the date and time of Flores’ upcoming hearing and his attendant rights and obligations. Flores failed to appear at the hearing and was ordered deported in absentia.

The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) rejected Flores’ claim that he did not receive proper notice, ruling that the INS was required to serve only him, and not the adult to whom he was released from custody, because he was over fourteen years of age at the time. See 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5a(c)(2)(ii). Flores now petitions for review of the BIA’s decision denying his motion to reopen his proceedings and rescind the in absentia deportation order.

Construing the regulatory scheme…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.