Denis Isabel Vergara Castellar v. PAMELA J. BONDI , Attorney General of the United States

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
____________________
No. 24-2930
DENIS I SABEL VERGARA C ASTELLAR , et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
PAMELA J. BONDI , Attorney General of the United States,
Respondent.
____________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals.
Nos. A245-124-589/656/675
____________________
S UBMITTED S EPTEMBER 29, 2025* — DECIDED O CTOBER 8, 2025
____________________
Before S CUDDER , S T. EVE, and M ALDONADO, Circuit Judges.
PER C URIAM . Denis Isabel Vergara Castellar; Wilmer Javier
Hernandez Villa; and Hernandez’s minor child, W.F.H.G.—
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because
the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments,
and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED . R. A PP . P.
34(a)(2)(C).

-- 1 of 5 --

2 No. 24-2930
Venezuelan citizens who had been ordered removed in absen-
tia after failing to appear at their removal hearing—petition
for review of a summary dismissal of their appeal by the
Board of Immigration Appeals. The Board determined that it
lacked jurisdiction to review their appeal. We agree and there-
fore deny the petition.
In August 2023, petitioners entered the United States from
Mexico and were intercepted by U.S. Border Patrol in the Rio
Grande Valley. The three were charged with being removable
under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), issued separate Notices to
Appear before an immigration judge, and paroled into the
country. They provided their current address at a residence in
Goshen, Indiana, and were released on their own recogni-
zance. In March 2024, the Department of Homeland Security
sent a notice to petitioners’ Goshen address of a removal hear-
ing scheduled in Chicago on April 2, 2024. Petitioners did not
appear at the hearing. An immigration judge conducted the
hearing in absentia, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A), determined
that the Department’s documentary evidence established the
factual allegations in their Notices to Appear, and ordered pe-
titioners removed to Venezuela.
Two weeks later, on April 15, petitioners, proceeding pro
se, filed a Notice of Appeal of the in absentia removal order
with the Board of Immigration Appeals. In their appeal, they
sought to have the case reopened because they had relocated
and did not receive notice of their hearing. They asserted that
they had attempted to change their address of record with the
Department.
Also on April 15, petitioners filed a motion to reopen with
the immigration judge, raising the same lack of notice argu-
ment as in their appeal to the Board. The motion included

-- 2 of 5 --

No. 24-2930 3
screenshots of Form EOIR-33/IC—the Change of Address
form—dated April 12, 2024. Hernandez also stated that he
had “requested my change of address a few months ago but
it was not received or approved.” On April 24, the IJ denied
the motion, finding that the record did not support petition-
ers’ contention that they had requested a change of address
before their April 2 removal hearing. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(b)(5)(B) (“No written notice shall be required … if the
alien has failed to provide the address required under section
1229(a)(1)(F) of this title.”). Petitioners eventually retained
counsel, who neither appealed the IJ’s April 24 ruling to the
Board nor amended the pro se pending Notice of Appeal to
include it.
On September 30, the Board summarily dismissed peti-
tioners’ appeal. The Board explained that it lacked jurisdiction
to review the appeal because petitioners did not first move to
reopen their case with the immigration judge, as required by
the Immigration and Nationality Act. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii) (An in absentia removal order “may be re-
scinded only … upon a motion to reopen filed at any time if
the alien demonstrates that the alien did not receive notice …
.”). The Board acknowledged the IJ’s April 24 denial of peti-
tioners’ April 15 motion to reopen, but noted that it could ad-
dress only the IJ’s April 2 removal order identified in the No-
tice of Appeal.
In their petition for review to this Court, petitioners, again
proceeding pro se, maintain that their relocation prevented
them from receiving notice of their hearing. They have sub-
mitted screenshots of an earlier separate Change of Address
form dated October 4, 2023, before the scheduled removal
hearing. Vergara states that she had an immigration hearing

-- 3 of 5 --

4 No. 24-2930
on October 4, 2023, and submitted the Change of Address
form at that time. Even if petitioners did submit this earlier
October 4 form, we cannot consider it because it does not ap-
pear in the administrative record.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A); see also Singh v. Bondi, 144 F.4th
985, 988 (7th Cir. 2025). It appears that the October 4 form was
not presented to the IJ when ruling on petitioners’ motion to
reopen or to the Board when it heard petitioners’ appeal. The
October 4 form should have been submitted with the motion
to reopen on April 15, and we may not consider it.
Moreover, as the Board explained, petitioners failed to fol-
low the proper procedure for seeking review of their removal.
The Board may review an in absentia removal order only if (1)
the petitioner moves to reopen before the IJ, (2) the IJ denies
that motion, and (3) the petitioner appeals that denial to the
Board. See Singh v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 484, 489–90, 490 n.31
(5th Cir. 2006) (“The Board may become involved … because
if the IJ denies the motion [to reopen], then that denial is ap-
pealable to the Board.”); see also In re Guzman-Arguera, 22 I. &
N. Dec. 722, 723 (B.I.A. 1999) (en banc) (“Only when an alien
has exhausted this avenue of relief may he or she file an ap-
peal with the Board.”). Absent an appeal from the IJ’s denial
of the motion to reopen, the Board lacks authority to review
the removal order because it is prohibited from engaging in
fact-finding and has no record before it to review. See Osmani
v. Garland, 24 F.4th 617, 623 (7th Cir. 2022) (cit-
ing 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv)(A)); Guzman-Arguera, 22 I. & N.
Dec. at 723. Here, because petitioners did not appeal the IJ’s
denial of their motion to reopen, they failed to satisfy the pro-
cedural steps required for Board review. The Board therefore
did not err in declining to consider the petition.

-- 4 of 5 --

No. 24-2930 5
For these reasons, we DENY the petition for review.

-- 5 of 5 --