Sun v. Barr

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-60430
Summary Calendar

Yi Bin Sun,

Petitioner,

versus

William P. Barr, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A205 094 178

Before Jones, Barksdale, and Stewart, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Yi Bin Sun, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denying his motion for reconsideration
following the BIA’s dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ)
denial of his motion to reopen. He contends: because he did not receive

*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 9, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-60430 Document: 00515667740 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/09/2020

No. 19-60430
2
actual notice of his removal hearing, the IJ’s in absentia removal order
violated his due-process rights. Constitutional claims and questions of law
are reviewed de novo. See Sattani v. Holder, 749 F.3d 368, 370 (5th Cir. 2014).
Further, denial of motions to reopen and for reconsideration are reviewed
under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Zhao v. Gonzales,
404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir. 2005).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for
reconsideration where the evidence showed that the notice to appear (NTA)
was served via mail addressed to Sun in conformity with the address he
provided. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A); see also Zhao, 404 F.3d at 303. An
alien who does not receive actual notice of a removal hearing due to his failure
to provide his current mailing address, as required by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229(a)(1)(F), cannot demonstrate that he did not receive the statutorily-
required notice. Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 360–61 (5th Cir.
2009). Before the BIA, Sun admitted that he moved residences, with the
understanding that the owner of his former residence would forward his mail.
Therefore, he conceded that he did not fulfill his obligation to update his
address with the immigration court, and written notice of the deportation
hearing was not required. 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(F), (a)(2)(B). In addition,
Sun’s due-process rights were not violated because service of the NTA was
“reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested
parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to
present their objections”. Lopez-Dubon v. Holder, 609 F.3d 642, 646 (5th Cir.
2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see United States v.
Estrada-Trochez, 66 F.3d 733, 736 (5th Cir. 1995).
DENIED.
Case: 19-60430 Document: 00515667740 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/09/2020