U.S.

Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Qffice of the Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike. Suue 2000
Falls Church. Virginia 22041

DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - SNA

8940 Fourwinds Drive, 5th Floor
San Antonio, TX 78239

Name: MULATILLO-ARRUE, MILAGRO I

A 200-060-538

Date of this notice: 11/3/2016

Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.
Sincerely,

DOY!.JtL CtVvu
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Grant, Edward R.
Mann, Ana
O'Connor, Blair

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index
Cite as: Milagro Isolina Mulatillo-Arrue, A200 060 538 (BIA Nov. 3, 2016)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

Lopez, Gloria
LAW OFFICES OF GLORIA LOPEZ
870 MARKET ST
STE 1261
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102

 U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

File: A200 060 538 - San Antonio, TX

Date:

NOV - 3 2016

In re: MILAGRO !SOLINA MULATILLO-ARRUE

APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Gloria Lopez, Esquire
APPLICATION: Reopening
The respondent, a native and citizen of El Salvador, was ordered removed in absentia on
October 17, 2005. On January 19, 2016, the respondent filed a motion to reopen proceedings,
which an Immigration Judge denied on February 3, 2016. The respondent filed a timely appeal
of that decision. The appeal will be sustained, the Immigration Judge's order will be vacated,
proceedings will be reopened and the record will be remanded.
The Board reviews an Immigration Judge's findings of fact under the clearly erroneous
standard. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(i). The Board reviews questions of law, discretion, and
judgment and all other issues in appeals from decisions of Immigration Judges de novo. 8 C.F .R.
1003.1(d)(3)(ii).
Upon de novo review of the record and in light of the totality of circumstances presented in
this case, we conclude that the respondent has demonstrated that reopening is warranted. 1 See
sections 240(b)(5)(C)(i), (e)(l) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
1229a(b)(5)(C)(i), (e)(l). We will therefore sustain the respondent's appeal and remand the
record for further proceedings.
ORDER: The respondent's appeal is sustained, the in absentia order is vacated, proceedings
are reopened and the record is remanded to the igration Judge for further proceedings and
for the entry of a new decision.

Among other factors, we have considered the ambiguity between the October 17, 2005, in
absentia order and the Immigration Judge's February 3, 2016, decision denying the motion to
reopen proceedings over whether a hearing notice was sent to the respondent at an address she
subsequently provided, as well as the absence of any opposition to the motion or appeal by the
Department of Homeland Security.
Cite as: Milagro Isolina Mulatillo-Arrue, A200 060 538 (BIA Nov. 3, 2016)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
IMMIGRATION COURT
800 DOLOROSA STREET, SUITE 300
SAN ANTONIO, TX 78207

FILE A 200-060-538
IN THE MATTER OF
MULATILLO-ARRUE, MILAGRO ISOLINA

DATE: Feb 4, 2016

UNABLE TO FORWARD - NO ADDRESS PROVIDED

V s

/nTTACHED IS A COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE. THIS DECISION

FINAL UNLESS AN APPEAL ISFILED WITH THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE MAILING OF THIS WRITTEN DECISION.
SEE THE ENCLOSED FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPERLY PREPARING YOUR APPEAL.
YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL, ATTACHED DOCUMENTS, AND FEE OR FEE WAIVER REQUEST
MUST BE MAILED TO:
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
FALLS CHURCH, VA 22041
ATTACHED IS A COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE AS THE RESULT
OF YOUR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT YOUR SCHEDULED DEPORTATION OR REMOVAL HEARING.
THIS DECISION IS FINAL UNLESS A MOTION TO REOPEN IS FILED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SECTION 242B{c) (3) OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, 8 U.S.C.
SECTION 1252B(c) (3) IN DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS OR SECTION 240(c) (6),
8 U.S.C. SECTION 1229a(c) (6) IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS. IF YOU FILE A MOTION
TO REOPEN, YOUR MOTION MUST BE FILED WITH THIS COURT:
IMMIGRATION COURT
800 DOLOROSA STREET, SUITE 300
SAN ANTONIO, TX 78207
OTHER:

CC: GREGORY BALL, CHIEF COUNSEL

P.O. BOX 1939
SAN ANTONIO, TX, 782971939

IMMIGRATION COURT

FF

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

LAW OFFICES OF GLORIA LOPEZ

Lopez, Gloria
870 MARKET ST
STE 1261
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Executive Office for Immigration Review
Immigration Court

File A200 060 538

In Removal Proceedings
Order of the Immigration Judge

Milagro lsolina Mulatillo-Arrue

The respondent in this case, who was ordered removed on October 17, 2005 in a proceeding conducted in
absentia, has moved to reopen the proceeding which resulted in her order of removal. The motion will be denied.
The respondent states as grounds for reopening that she never received notice of her hearing. This is
correct. The Notice to Appear demonstrates that the respondent was notified when she was apprehended of the
requirement to provide a valid address for notice purposes and informed that if no address was provided written
notice of the hearing was not required. The respondent did not provide an address for notice purposes at the time
she received her Notice to Appear as required by 239(a)(l )(F)(i) of the Act. The charging document and Court
record make clear no valid address was provided. Where the Notice to Appear (Form I 862) states on its face that no
address is provided, the respondent is on notice that an address must be provided for notice purposes. The law and
regulations make clear that it is the respondent's responsibility to provide an address for notice purposes and make
any corrections or changes (including the initial provision of an address) within 5 days. There is no record of the
Court ever receiving any notice of address as required by 239(a)(l )(F)(ii) of the Act and Title 8 CFR 1003.1 S(d)(l)
until the address presented with the motion to reopen on January 1 9, 2016, over ten years after the time allowed.
Where no address for notice purposes is provided, the court is required by the statutory scheme created by Congress
to proceed without notice to or participation by the respondent. See 239(a)(2)(B) and 240(b)(5)(B) of the Act. Any
motion based upon "exceptional circumstances" is years out of time and could not be granted for that reason.
The Notice to Appear was personally served upon the respondent as evidenced by her signature acknowledging
receipt [see Matter of Cubor, 25 l&N Dec. 470 (BIA 2011)] and sets forth the requirements for providing an address
where the respondent could receive notice. Respondent was released on recognizance "due to lack of detention
funds". The respondent indicated at the time of apprehension that she was going to Houston, Texas but in the
event apparently actually went to Richmond, California. The respondent never provided a valid address to the Court
as required. This is stated on the face of the Notice to Appear served on the respondent and in the report of her
apprehension (Form I - 213). The respondent's responsibilities are not obviated by her ignorance of them or by her
willfully ignoring them. Therefore I find it clear that the respondent received the notice required in a case such as
this where she did not provide an address for notice purposes. The notice required is none. Where no address is
given notice is not required. Where an invalid or inaccurate address is given, no notice is required. See

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

In the Matter of

Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F. 3rd 354 (5th Cir. 2009). There is no requirement that a Notice to Appear and the
advisals thereon be in any language other than English. See Cruz-Diaz v. Holder, 388 F. App'x. 429 (5th Cir. 201O;
Chavez v. Holder, 343 F. App'x. 955 (5th Cir 2009), Ojeda Calderon v Holder, 726 F3 669 (5th Cir. 2013).

Finally the court will not consider sua sponte reopening based upon respondent's motion. The respondent
made no attempt to contact the court or the OHS although she was aware that she had entered the United States
illegally. The respondent indicates that she was advised to and elected to remain a fugitive years after her entry.
With respect to any offenses against her in the United States, the respondent can seek ajoint motion to reopen with
USICE or collateral benefits with USCIS. While the respondent alleges trauma and difficulty functioning after her
entry, this does not excuse her lack of any attempt to contact the court or USICE for over a decade after that entry.
There is nothing about this that would be an "exceptional situation" [see Matter of}- J-, 21 l&N Dec. 976 (BIA 1997)]
and the hearing will not be reopened sua sponte by the court. The motion to reopen shall therefore be, and is
hereby, DENIED. SO ORDERED.

Date : February 3, 2016

Place: San Antonio, Texas

Immigration Judge

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

The motion alleges that the respondent is eligible for reopening to apply for asylum or withholding of removal.
The application (Form I - 589) included with the motion makes no showing that there has been a change in country
conditions in El Salvador since the respondent's departure in 2005. See Title 8 CFR 1003.23(b)(4)(i). Rather,
respondent recites circumstances as they were in her life before her departure for the United States. The
continuation of those circumstances would not be a material change in country conditions but rather the lack
thereof. The respondent has not demonstrated eligibility for reopening under Title 8 CFR 1003.23(b)(4)(i). Any
deferred action, prosecutorial discretion, or other exercise of priorities by the USICE or DHS is outside of and
independent of the authority of the Immigration Court. Any of these actions can be taken prior to, at any stage of,
or subsequent to removal proceedings and would not provide any justification to reopen the proceedings.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
THIS DOCUMENT WAS SERVED BY: MAll((Mi)
PERSONAL SERVICE@D
TO: [ ] ALIEN [ ] ALIEN c/o Custodial Officer
)t{])UEN'S ATT/REP t.HbHS
DATE: Q-l}-\lo BY: COURY STAFF
Attachments: [ ] EOIR-33 [ l EOIR-28
[ 1 Legal Services List [ ] Other

USL