In re Gomez-Gomez, Board of Immigration Appeals
Glendi Gomez-Gomez was apprehended by the INS during an immigration status check at a bus station in Brownsville, Texas. She was eight years old. She was with an adult who claimed to be her father, who provided the INS with an address in Houston. She did not appear at the removal hearing. The only evidence the INS introduced was the INS form completed at the time of the apprehension. The Immigration Judge found that because of her age, and the fact that there was no evidence to support the man’s claim that he was her father, combined with the fact that adults will often make false parental claims in the hope of avoiding detention, the INS form was not reliable and could not be the basis for a deportation order. The INS appealed.
The INS form at issue is a type of hearsay evidence, but is nonetheless routinely admitted as evidence unless there is a specific reason to doubt its veracity. The Board found that the immigration judge’s findings about the lack of evidence of a familial relationship and about the prevalence of false parental claims was not a sufficient basis for doubting the truth of the INS form.
The immigration judge had also found that in servicing the notice to appear on the man claiming to be her father was not sufficient, nor was mailing the notice to the Houston address. She also found that even were the man really her father, the service was still not effective because he was not required to ensure her presence, and it would be a due process violation to penalize her for failing to appear because of her youth. The board rejected this argument, finding that an adult who lives with a minor in proceedings is responsible for ensuring the minor’s presence at immigration hearings.
The opinion is available online at http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/efoia/bia/Decisions/Revdec/pdfDEC/3483.pdf.
*********
In re Mejia-Andino, Board of Immigration Appeals
Rosa Mejia-Andino was apprehended by the INS when she attempted to unlawfully enter the US in 1999. She was seven years old at the time. She told the agents that she was trying to get to Detroit, where her parents lived, and gave them an address in Detroit. She failed to appear at the removal hearing, and the INS requested the immigration judge enter an in absentia deportation order. The judge declined to do so, and terminated the proceedings, finding that the INS had failed to properly notify the girl of the time of the hearing. The notice to appear was personally served on the girl’s uncle, who was with her at the time of entry. The INS appealed.
INS regulations have specific provisions for issuing notices to appear to people under 14, requiring them to be sent to the person with whom the child resides and also to a close relative. The Board found that serving the notice to the uncle was not sufficient. First, there were questions about whether the man was really the girl’s uncle, and second, the Board found that when the child will be living with his or her parents in the US, the INS is required to send the notice to the parents. Here, the INS knew the girl was going to live with her parents in Detroit, and even had an address. Therefore, the Board found, notice of the hearing was not adequately made and the proceedings were properly terminated.
The opinion is available online at http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/efoia/bia/Decisions/Revdec/pdfDEC/3484.pdf.
Disclaimer: This newsletter is provided as a public service and not intended to establish an attorney client relationship. Any reliance on information contained herein is taken at your own risk. The information provided in this article has not been updated since its original posting and you should not rely on it until you consult counsel to determine if the content is still valid. We keep older articles online because it helps in the understanding of the development of immigration law.