TOVAR MEZA v. BARR (2020)

Rudy Emilio Tovar-Meza, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from an order by an immigration judge (IJ) denying his motion to reopen and rescind his in absentia removal order. The BIA determined that Tovar-Meza failed to demonstrate a basis to reopen or rescind because the lack of notice of his removal hearing was the result of his failure to provide a mailing address. See Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 359-61 (5th Cir. 2009). Reviewing that decision on a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, id. at 358, we deny the petition.

First, we have already concluded that the Supreme Court's decision in Pereira v. Sessions, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 201 L.Ed.2d 433 (2018), did not affect our decision in Gomez-Palacios. See Mauricio-Benitez v. Sessions, 908 F.3d 144, 148 & n.1 (5th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2767, 204 L.Ed.2d 1133 (2019). Second, Tovar-Meza fails to demonstrate any error in the BIA's determination that he failed to provide an address in the months following his release from detention. See Gomez-Palacios, 560 F.3d at 358. Third, we are unpersuaded that the BIA erred in rejecting his due process argument. See Ramos-Portillo v. Barr, 919 F.3d 955, 963 (5th Cir. 2019). Accordingly, Tovar-Meza's petition for review is DENIED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.