Maria Chavalan-Sut v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-2049
MARIA CHAVALAN-SUT,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: June 25, 2024 Decided: July 12, 2024
Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Alina Marie Kilpatrick, SUDESTE IMMIGRATION LAWYERS PLLC,
Richmond, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General,
Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, Ilana J. Snyder, Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Maria Chavalan-Sut, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her second motion to reopen seeking to
rescind her in absentia order of removal. We have reviewed the record and the IJ’s decision
and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the appeal. See
Garcia Hernandez v. Garland, 27 F.4th 263, 266 (4th Cir. 2022) (stating standard of
review). Chavalan-Sut’s contention that the IJ did not have authority to order her removed
in absentia because the notice to appear did not indicate the time and place for the removal
proceedings is without merit. See Cedillos-Cedillos v. Barr, 962 F.3d 817, 823
(4th Cir. 2020) (noting that requirement that notice to appear include time and date of
proceedings is not jurisdictional).
That leaves Chavalan-Sut’s contention that she was denied due process because she
did not receive the notice at all. She does not dispute that the notice was sent to her last
known address and was not returned as undeliverable. She must therefore rebut the
“presumption of effective delivery” we afford the agency. Nibagwire v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d
153, 156 (4th Cir. 2006). Because she has failed to do so, we reject her constitutional
argument as well.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 2 of 2 --