Case Overview
In Matter of LAPARRA-DELEON, the Board of Immigration Appeals reaffirmed that a respondent may be ordered removed in absentia when initially served with a statutorily defective Notice to Appear (NTA) lacking the date and time of hearing, so long as the respondent later received a statutorily compliant Notice of Hearing specifying that information. Relying on intervening Supreme Court precedent in Campos-Chaves v. Garland, the Board reinstated its prior 2022 decision and held that such notice satisfies the written notice requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), foreclosing rescission of an in absentia removal order for lack of notice.
Key Facts in Matter of LAPARRA-DELEON
The respondent, Sergio Rodolfo Laparra-Deleon, was placed in removal proceedings by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The respondent was initially served with a Notice to Appear that did not specify the date or time of the removal hearing. Such NTAs are statutorily noncompliant under Pereira v. Sessions and Niz-Chavez v. Garland. On March 19, 2010 DHS properly served the respondent with a Notice of Hearing specifying the date, time, and location of the removal hearing. On April 8, 2010 the respondent failed to appear at the scheduled hearing. An Immigration Judge entered an in absentia order of removal.
Procedural History
The respondent filed motions to reopen proceedings and to rescind the in absentia removal order, asserting lack of jurisdiction and insufficient notice. In 2022, the BIA denied the motions in Matter of Laparra, 28 I&N Dec. 425 (BIA 2022). The First Circuit Court of Appeals partially vacated and remanded the decision, holding that a subsequent Notice of Hearing could not cure a defective NTA for in absentia purposes. DHS moved to reinstate the BIA’s prior decision following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Campos-Chaves v. Garland (2024). The respondent did not oppose DHS’s motion on remand.
Legal Issues Presented in Matter of LAPARRA-DELEON
Can the court enter an in absentia removal order when the initial NTA lacked a date and time, but the respondent later received a statutorily compliant Notice of Hearing? Whether such notice satisfies the “written notice” requirements under INA §§ 239(a) and 240(b)(5).
Decision Summary
The Board granted DHS’s motion to reinstate the prior BIA decision. A statutorily compliant Notice of Hearing may provide the “new” time and place of proceedings required by INA § 239(a)(2), even if the initial NTA was defective.
Legal Reasoning and Analysis in Matter of LAPARRA-DELEON
The Board’s analysis centered on intervening Supreme Court authority that resolved a circuit split on notice requirements.
INA § 240(b)(5)(A) permits in absentia removal if the respondent fails to appear after receiving written notice. INA § 239(a)(2) authorizes a Notice of Hearing to provide a “new” time or place of proceedings.
In Campos-Chaves v. Garland, the Supreme Court held that a Notice of Hearing can cure an initial NTA’s omission of date and time for in absentia purposes. The Court clarified that earlier language in Pereira relied upon by some circuits was dicta.
Although not explicitly vacated, the First Circuit’s reasoning in Laparra-Deleon v. Garland conflicted directly with Campos-Chaves. The BIA determined that the First Circuit decision was effectively overruled.
The respondent received a statutorily compliant Notice of Hearing. His failure to appear supported entry of an in absentia removal order. Consequently, rescission under INA § 240(b)(5)(C)(ii) was unavailable.
Practical Implications
Motions to rescind in absentia orders face significantly higher barriers when a proper Notice of Hearing is later served based solely on defective NTAs. Evidence of service of a Notice of Hearing is now dispositive in many notice-based reopening claims. Individuals subject to final removal orders may face enforcement consequences that affect employment eligibility and compliance planning.
The decision aligns BIA precedent with Supreme Court interpretation, restoring uniformity across jurisdictions absent contrary circuit precedent. It signals reduced viability of Pereira/Niz-Chavez-based challenges in the in absentia context. Adjudicators are likely to focus on proof of service rather than defects in the original NTA.
Key Takeaways
- A proper Notice of Hearing served later does not prevent in absentia removal despite a defective NTA.
- Campos-Chaves v. Garland is now the controlling authority on this issue.
- Motions to reopen based on notice defects require careful scrutiny of hearing notices.
- DHS bears the burden of proving proper service of the Notice of Hearing.
- The decision reinforces finality of long-standing in absentia orders.
