Raul Daniel Mendez-Colin v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAUL DANIEL MENDEZ-COLIN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-71846
Agency No. A090-835-140
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: McKEOWN and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY,*** District
Judge.
Raul Daniel Mendez-Colin petitions this Court for review of the decision by
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion seeking, among
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for
the District of Montana, sitting by designation.
FILED
FEB 4 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
other outcomes, rescission of his in absentia removal order. The Immigration &
Nationality Act allows an in absentia removal order to be rescinded through a
motion to reopen “filed at any time” if the noncitizen provided a compliant
address, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(B), and can show that the noncitizen “did not
receive notice in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a) of this
title,” id. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). Mendez-Colin argues that the Notice to Appear he
received was defective because it failed to provide the date or time of his removal
proceedings. We review the BIA’s denial of his motion for an abuse of discretion
but review purely legal questions de novo. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581
(9th Cir. 2016).
Mendez-Colin’s arguments concerning the defective Notice to Appear that
he received pursuant to § 1229(a) match the substance of those raised in a related
case that we decide today, Singh v. Garland, No. 20-70050, __ F.4th __ (9th Cir.
2022). For the reasons explained in our opinion in that case, we grant Mendez-
Colin’s petition and remand to the BIA.
Noncitizens must receive a Notice to Appear, in a single document, with the
time and date of their hearing before the government can order them removed in
absentia. Here, although Mendez-Colin provided an address to trigger the
government’s obligation to provide notice, the government did not provide
statutorily compliant notice to him. Because Mendez-Colin did not receive

-- 2 of 3 --

3
statutorily compliant notice before his removal hearing, the in absentia removal
order issued at that hearing is invalid.
PETITION GRANTED AND REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --