U.S.

Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board of Immigration Appeals

Office of the Clerk

5/07 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

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

Ojeda, Bernal P. OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - LOS
Law Offices of Bernal Peter Ojeda 606 S. Olive Street, 8th Floor
Post Office Box 3664 Los Angeles, CA 90014
Westlake Park Place
Westlake Village, CA 91359-0664

Name: RAMIREZ FLORES, JUAN FRAN ... A 070-818-387

Date of this notice: 6/16/2020

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

Sincerely,

DcnnL Ca,-vu
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk

Enclosure

Panel Members:
Kelly, Edward F.

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index

Cite as: Juan Francisco Ramirez Flores, A070 818 387 (BIA June 16, 2020)
I U.S. Department of Justice Decision ofthe Board of Immigration Appeals
Executive Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

✓

File: A070-818-387- Los Angeles, CA Date:

JUN 1 o2020
In re: Juan Francisco RAMIREZ FLORES

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

IN DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS

MOTION

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Bernal P. Ojeda, Esquire

APPLICATION: Reopening; reconsideration; remand

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has remanded this matter to the Board
for further consideration of the respondent's motion for reconsideration, reopening, and remand.
See Ramirez Flores v. Barr, Nos. 18-72424, 19-71362 (9th Cir. Jan. 31, 2020). We previously
denied the respondent's motion on May 6, 2019. We will assume the parties' familiarity with the
procedural history of this case. The respondent is a native and citizen of Mexico who was ordered
deported from the United States in absentia on January 3, 1995.

Upon further consideration, the respondent's motion is granted. On August 1, 2018, this Board
summarily dismissed the respondent's appeal of the decision of the Immigration Judge, dated
August 23, 2017. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.l(d)(2)(i)(A), (E). The respondent, through counsel, has
sufficiently established that he did not receive the prior briefing schedule. See generally Matter
of M-R-A-, 24 I&N Dec. 665 (BIA 2008). As such, we now vacate this Board's prior decisions
and reinstate the respondent's appeal of the Immigration Judge's decision to deny his motion to
reopen.

Turning to the merits of the respondent's underlying appeal of the Immigration Judge's
decision to deny his motion to reopen, we conclude that reopening is warranted. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.23(b)(4)(iii)(A)(2). He has presented a signed declaration disavowing receipt of the Order
to Show Cause ("OSC"), which was mailed to his reported address on or about July 22, 1994, by
the former Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS"). "For OSCs, service was proper only
if the INS established that the return receipt was signed by the alien or a responsible person at the
alien's address." Chaidez v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 1079, 1085 (9th Cir. 2007); Matter of Huete,
20 I&N Dec. 250,253 (BIA 1991) ("Our review of the statute and pertinent regulations leads us
to conclude that the most reasonable interpretation of the provision for service by certified mail,
return receipt requested, is to require that the certified mail receipt be signed by the respondent or
a responsible person at the respondent's address and returned to effect personal service."); see also
Ruiz Clemente v. Whitaker, 743 F.App'x 891, 892 (9th Cir. 2018) (stating that, even though service
of a hearing notice can be sufficient even if no one signs for it, proper service of an OSC cause
occurs when it is sent via certified mail and the receipt is signed by either the alien or a responsible
person at the alien's address).

The OSC's Domestic Return Receipt does not contain the respondent's signature. Instead, as
discussed by the Immigration Judge, the OSC was signed for by an individual named "A. Olivares"
or "A. Alvares" (IJ at 2). It is reasonable to assume that the unidentified individual was not simply
Cite as: Juan Francisco Ramirez Flores, A070 818 387 (BIA June 16, 2020)
A070-8 l 8-387

a random passerby. However, the Domestic Return Receipt does not establish that the individual
was a responsible person at the address. The record does not otherwise contain evidence that the
individual was a responsible person at the address. Accordingly, we conclude that the record does
not establish, by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the respondent or a responsible
person at his address signed the certified mail return receipt for his OSC.

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

For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that these proceedings should be reopened based
upon a lack of showing that the respondent was properly served with the OSC. Upon remand, the
Immigration Judge should take further action as he deems proper.

For the reasons set forth above, the following order will be entered.

ORDER: The respondent's appeal is sustained, the in absentia order of deportation, entered
on January 3, 1995, is vacated, these deportation proceedings are reopened, and the record is
remanded to the Immigration Court for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion
and the entry of a new decision.

Cite as: Juan Francisco Ramirez Flores, A070 818 387 (BIA June 16, 2020)