e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 84384
Opinion Date : 09/17/2025
e-Journal Date : 10/03/2025
Court : U.S. Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit
Case Name : Guzman-Torralva v. Bondi
Practice Area(s) : Immigration
Judge(s) : Larsen, Gilman, and Kethledge
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Motion to reopen removal proceedings; Whether petitioner’s in absentia removal order should be rescinded because he received a deficient Notice to Appear (NTA); 8 USC § 1229a(b)(5); Campos-Chaves v Garland; Whether petitioner could make a prima facie case for cancellation of removal; § 1229a(c)(7); The court’s jurisdiction; Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

Summary

On review from the BIA, the court denied in part petitioner-Guzman-Torralva’s petition for review, concluding he still did not meet the requirements for reopening his removal proceedings. And because it lacked jurisdiction over one of his claims, it dismissed his petition in part. Guzman-Torralva, a Mexican citizen who entered this country illegally, was ordered removed from the country in absentia. This was his second attempt to reopen proceedings. The order was entered after he failed to appear, himself or through counsel, at an immigration hearing. His first motion to reopen proceedings was based on ineffective assistance of counsel and was denied. In his second motion, he claimed that he did not receive a proper NTA and as a result, was entitled to have the proceedings reopened and the removal order rescinded. In the alternative, he argued that his proceedings should be reopened so that he could apply for cancellation of removal based on intervening case law. He also asked the BIA to reopen his proceedings sua sponte. The BIA denied his motion. The court found that “Guzman-Torralva did not receive proper notice under” ¶ (1) of § 1229(a) “because his NTA did not specify the ‘time and place at which the proceedings will be held.’” However, he received proper notice under ¶ “(2), which provides that ‘in the case of any change or postponement,’ the alien shall be given a ‘written notice’ that must specify ‘the new time or place of the proceedings’ and the consequences for failing to attend.” The court noted that a proper ¶ “(2) notice, like the one Guzman-Torralva received, supersedes a deficient NTA.” The court rejected his reliance on intervening case law, holding that the cases he cited were not directly on point and that all “the ‘key details’ of Campos-Chaves’s consolidated cases” existed here. The court also rejected his argument that the proceedings should be reopened so that he could seek cancellation of removal where he “failed to show prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal.” Finally, it found that it lacked jurisdiction to review his “final contention: that sua sponte reopening is warranted here.”

Full PDF Opinion