IMG-149 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________
Nos. 10-1145 and 10-3593 ___________
EDGAR VILLANUEVA, Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Respondent ____________________________________
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A073- 639 -675) Immigration Judge: Honorable Eugene Pugliese ____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) June 1, 2011
Before: SCIRICA, FISHER and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: June 1, 2011) ___________
OPINION ___________
PER CURIAM
Edgar Villanueva, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of an order denying his motion to reopen his immigration proceedings and an order denying his
motion to reconsider the BIA’s order. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the
petitions for review.
Villanueva entered the United States in 1994 without inspection and filed an
application for political asylum. On July 6, 1995, immigration officers interviewed
Villanueva and he gave a sworn statement as to his citizenship and manner of entry into
the United States. His asylum application was referred to an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
for adjudication. On July 20, 1995, Villanueva was personally served an Order to Show
Cause, charging that he was deportable from the United States because he entered the
country without inspection. The Order to Show Cause directed Villanueva to appear for
a hearing on October 12, 1995 in Newark, New Jersey. On August 1, 1995, the Newark
Immigration Court notified Villanueva by certified mail that the hearing would be held at
a different location.
On October 12, 1995, the IJ held the scheduled hearing and marked the Order to
Show Cause, the hearing notice, and other documents as evidence. The hearing was not
transcribed and it is unclear who was present. That same day, the Immigration Court sent
Villanueva another hearing notice by certified mail, directing him to appear on
November 30, 1995. Villanueva did not appear at the hearing and, as a result, the IJ
ordered his deportation in absentia. The IJ’s decision was mailed to Villanueva the next
day.
2 More than twelve years later, in 2008, Villanueva filed a motion to reopen and
rescind his deportation order. Villanueva asserted that the Order to Show Cause was not
explained to him in Spanish. He claimed immigration officers violated the applicable
regulations and his due process rights. Villanueva submitted an affidavit in support of his
motion, stating that he did not understand the meaning of the Order to Show Cause and
that he could not read the letters from the Immigration Court. Villanueva further stated
that he only recently became aware of the deportation order, having never received a
copy of the order when it was mailed.
The IJ denied the motion to reopen and rescind the deportation order, noting,
among other things, that Villanueva had conceded in his affidavit that he was personally
served the Order to Show Cause and that he had signed the certified mail receipt for his
hearing notice. The BIA dismissed Villanueva’s appeal, concluding that the evidence
established that Villanueva was properly served the Order to Show Cause and was put on
notice that he was being placed in deportation proceedings. The BIA noted that there is
no requirement that the Order to Show Cause be read to Villanueva in his own language.
The BIA rejected Villanueva’s due process claim because Villanueva was apprised of the
fact that he had been placed in deportation proceedings and was given an opportunity to
be present at his hearings.1 The BIA also denied Villanueva’s subsequent motion for
1 The BIA rejected other arguments raised by Villanueva, including arguments that he did not receive the deportation order and that sua sponte reopening was warranted. Villanueva does not pursue these arguments in his petitions for review.
3 reconsideration. Villanueva filed petitions for review of both decisions by the BIA,
which have been consolidated for disposition.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We review the denial of a
motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Fadiga v. Att’y Gen., 488 F.3d 142, 153 (3d
Cir. 2007). Under this standard, we will uphold the BIA’s decision unless it is arbitrary,
irrational, or contrary to law. Id. We apply the same standard to a denial of a motion to
reconsider. Borges v. Gonzales, 402 F.3d 398, 404 (3d Cir. 2005). We review
Villanueva’s underlying due process claim de novo. Fadiga, 488 F.3d at 153.
Because Villanueva’s deportation proceedings were initiated before April 1, 1997,
the effective date of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
1996, the former notice requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1252b apply. Under the former
statute, an alien who did not attend a deportation proceeding after having received written
notice of the proceeding was ordered deported in absentia if the Government established
by clear and convincing evidence that notice was provided and the alien was deportable.
8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(1)(1995) (repealed). Such a deportation order may be rescinded at
any time if the alien shows that he did not receive notice in accordance with
§ 1252b(a)(2). Id. § 1252b(c)(3) (repealed). Section 1252b(a)(2) required written notice
in person, or by certified mail if personal service was not practicable, in the order to show
cause of the time and place of the proceedings and the consequences of a failure to
appear. Id. § 1252b(a)(2) (repealed). Such notice was also required in the case of any
change in the time and place of the proceedings. Id.
4 Villanueva does not argue in his brief that immigration officers failed to comply
with § 1252b(a)(2), but contends that they violated 8 C.F.R. § 242.1(c), which required
an immigration officer to explain the contents of the Order to Show Cause when it was
personally served. In rejecting this argument, the BIA noted that the regulations do not
require that the Order to Show Cause be read to the alien in his native language, that there
is no statutory requirement that the Order to Show Cause be explained or read to the alien
in his own language, and that the evidence established Villanueva was properly served
with the Order to Show Cause and was put on notice that he was being placed in
deportation proceedings.
Villanueva has not shown that the BIA’s decision is arbitrary, irrational, or
contrary to law. The Order to Show Cause reflects that it was not read to Villanueva in
Spanish, but as the BIA has stated, the regulations did not require an officer to read the
entire document. In re S-M-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 49, 51 n.1 (BIA 1998). Although the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IMG-149 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________
Nos. 10-1145 and 10-3593 ___________
EDGAR VILLANUEVA, Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Respondent ____________________________________
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A073- 639 -675) Immigration Judge: Honorable Eugene Pugliese ____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) June 1, 2011
Before: SCIRICA, FISHER and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: June 1, 2011) ___________
OPINION ___________
PER CURIAM
Edgar Villanueva, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of an order denying his motion to reopen his immigration proceedings and an order denying his
motion to reconsider the BIA’s order. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the
petitions for review.
Villanueva entered the United States in 1994 without inspection and filed an
application for political asylum. On July 6, 1995, immigration officers interviewed
Villanueva and he gave a sworn statement as to his citizenship and manner of entry into
the United States. His asylum application was referred to an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
for adjudication. On July 20, 1995, Villanueva was personally served an Order to Show
Cause, charging that he was deportable from the United States because he entered the
country without inspection. The Order to Show Cause directed Villanueva to appear for
a hearing on October 12, 1995 in Newark, New Jersey. On August 1, 1995, the Newark
Immigration Court notified Villanueva by certified mail that the hearing would be held at
a different location.
On October 12, 1995, the IJ held the scheduled hearing and marked the Order to
Show Cause, the hearing notice, and other documents as evidence. The hearing was not
transcribed and it is unclear who was present. That same day, the Immigration Court sent
Villanueva another hearing notice by certified mail, directing him to appear on
November 30, 1995. Villanueva did not appear at the hearing and, as a result, the IJ
ordered his deportation in absentia. The IJ’s decision was mailed to Villanueva the next
day.
2 More than twelve years later, in 2008, Villanueva filed a motion to reopen and
rescind his deportation order. Villanueva asserted that the Order to Show Cause was not
explained to him in Spanish. He claimed immigration officers violated the applicable
regulations and his due process rights. Villanueva submitted an affidavit in support of his
motion, stating that he did not understand the meaning of the Order to Show Cause and
that he could not read the letters from the Immigration Court. Villanueva further stated
that he only recently became aware of the deportation order, having never received a
copy of the order when it was mailed.
The IJ denied the motion to reopen and rescind the deportation order, noting,
among other things, that Villanueva had conceded in his affidavit that he was personally
served the Order to Show Cause and that he had signed the certified mail receipt for his
hearing notice. The BIA dismissed Villanueva’s appeal, concluding that the evidence
established that Villanueva was properly served the Order to Show Cause and was put on
notice that he was being placed in deportation proceedings. The BIA noted that there is
no requirement that the Order to Show Cause be read to Villanueva in his own language.
The BIA rejected Villanueva’s due process claim because Villanueva was apprised of the
fact that he had been placed in deportation proceedings and was given an opportunity to
be present at his hearings.1 The BIA also denied Villanueva’s subsequent motion for
1 The BIA rejected other arguments raised by Villanueva, including arguments that he did not receive the deportation order and that sua sponte reopening was warranted. Villanueva does not pursue these arguments in his petitions for review.
3 reconsideration. Villanueva filed petitions for review of both decisions by the BIA,
which have been consolidated for disposition.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We review the denial of a
motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Fadiga v. Att’y Gen., 488 F.3d 142, 153 (3d
Cir. 2007). Under this standard, we will uphold the BIA’s decision unless it is arbitrary,
irrational, or contrary to law. Id. We apply the same standard to a denial of a motion to
reconsider. Borges v. Gonzales, 402 F.3d 398, 404 (3d Cir. 2005). We review
Villanueva’s underlying due process claim de novo. Fadiga, 488 F.3d at 153.
Because Villanueva’s deportation proceedings were initiated before April 1, 1997,
the effective date of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
1996, the former notice requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1252b apply. Under the former
statute, an alien who did not attend a deportation proceeding after having received written
notice of the proceeding was ordered deported in absentia if the Government established
by clear and convincing evidence that notice was provided and the alien was deportable.
8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(1)(1995) (repealed). Such a deportation order may be rescinded at
any time if the alien shows that he did not receive notice in accordance with
§ 1252b(a)(2). Id. § 1252b(c)(3) (repealed). Section 1252b(a)(2) required written notice
in person, or by certified mail if personal service was not practicable, in the order to show
cause of the time and place of the proceedings and the consequences of a failure to
appear. Id. § 1252b(a)(2) (repealed). Such notice was also required in the case of any
change in the time and place of the proceedings. Id.
4 Villanueva does not argue in his brief that immigration officers failed to comply
with § 1252b(a)(2), but contends that they violated 8 C.F.R. § 242.1(c), which required
an immigration officer to explain the contents of the Order to Show Cause when it was
personally served. In rejecting this argument, the BIA noted that the regulations do not
require that the Order to Show Cause be read to the alien in his native language, that there
is no statutory requirement that the Order to Show Cause be explained or read to the alien
in his own language, and that the evidence established Villanueva was properly served
with the Order to Show Cause and was put on notice that he was being placed in
deportation proceedings.
Villanueva has not shown that the BIA’s decision is arbitrary, irrational, or
contrary to law. The Order to Show Cause reflects that it was not read to Villanueva in
Spanish, but as the BIA has stated, the regulations did not require an officer to read the
entire document. In re S-M-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 49, 51 n.1 (BIA 1998). Although the
regulations required that the Order to Show Cause be explained when it was personally
served, as noted by the Government, there is no evidence establishing that immigration
officers did not explain the Order to Show Cause. Villanueva only states in his affidavit
that the “order might have been written in Greek because I could not understand its
meaning, and only recently understood it after my attorney explained it to me.” A.R. at
124. Villanueva relies in his brief on In re Hernandez, 21 I. & N. Dec. 224 (BIA 1996),
but in that case, unlike here, it was established that immigration officers violated
5 § 242.1(c), and the BIA considered whether the alien established the requisite prejudice
resulting from the violation.
The BIA also did not err in rejecting Villanueva’s argument that his due process
rights were violated. The BIA found that Villanueva was clearly apprised of the fact that
he had been placed in deportation proceedings and was given an opportunity to be present
at his scheduled hearings. We agree. The Order to Show Cause states in English and
Spanish “YOU ARE ORDERED to appear for a hearing before an Immigration Judge
. . . and show cause why you should not be deported . . . .” A.R. at 177. The Order
further provides, “You are required to be present at your deportation hearing
prepared to proceed. If you fail to appear at any hearing after having been given
written notice of the date, time and location of your hearing, you will be ordered deported
in your absence, if it is established that you are deportable and you have been provided
the appropriate notice of the hearing.” A.R. at 181. The Order also sets forth the place,
time, and date of the hearing. Although Villanueva states he did not understand the
Order to Show Cause, the directive to appear for a hearing is clear. Moreover, on July 6,
1995, just two weeks before receiving the Order to Show Cause, Villanueva was
interviewed at the Lyndhurst, New Jersey Asylum Office, where he had an interpreter
and gave a sworn statement regarding his entry into the United States. He also had a
6 pending asylum application when he received the Order to Show Cause. Villanueva has
not shown a due process violation.2
Villanueva also asserts that his motion to reopen and rescind should be granted
nunc pro tunc. While such relief may be granted to rectify an error in an immigration
proceeding, Edwards v. I.N.S., 393 F.3d 299, 309 (2d Cir. 2004), Villanueva has not
shown that relief is warranted here. Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial
of Villanueva’s motion to reconsider, in which he primarily reiterated the arguments he
raised on appeal to the BIA.
Accordingly, we will deny the petitions for review.
2 Villanueva does not contend in his brief that his due process or statutory rights were violated because the notice of the change in hearing location and the notice of the November 30, 1995, hearing were not provided in Spanish.