Migrants who miss their immigration court dates because they moved and did not receive notices at their new address cannot later ask judges to block their deportation, the top immigration appeals court has ruled.
The Board of Immigration Appeals said migrants are responsible for keeping the courts and the Department of Homeland Security apprised of their current addresses.
The board said the immigration courts do not have the capacity to chase down migrants as they move from one location to another.
People were interested in these podcasts
Even if courts had the money and resources, doing so would still be wrong because it could be seen as tainting judges’ status as neutral arbiters. Doing so also could cross the line into a prohibited ex parte, or one-sided, communication.
“Respondents are required to inform the immigration court or the board, as applicable, of any necessary corrections to the address listed on the notice to appear and any change of address,” Garry Malphrus, the chief appellate immigration judge, wrote in the ruling Thursday.
The question is not academic.
The immigration courts are averaging more than 30,000 in absentia removal orders per month in 2026, meaning migrants are no-shows at their proceedings.
The Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision means migrants will be hard-pressed to seek to have their cases reopened later because of claims that they did not receive notice of their hearings.
“This isn’t ’catch me if you can’; it is ’catch me again if you can, and keep catching me until I’m deported,’” said Andrew “Art” Arthur, a former immigration judge who is now with the Center for Immigration Studies.
The decision was a challenge to the 9th Circuit, which last year ruled that migrants had a constitutional right to “sufficient notice” in their deportation cases, including a governmental “obligation” to ensure they received it.
The 9th Circuit said notice is not satisfied when mail is returned as undeliverable and the government takes no additional steps.
Judge Malphrus, writing for the board, said the obligation cannot be foisted onto the immigration courts.
He pointed out that the 9th Circuit had ruled that immigration judges must be neutral parties, and he said directing them to track down migrants’ current addresses would cross the line by assisting Homeland Security.
In a Sept. 3 ruling, the board said Homeland Security — which mails the initial immigration court summons — can rely on the address provided by the migrant.
The Washington Times reached out to several immigrant rights legal advocates for this report, but none provided comment.
The immigration courts are part of the executive branch within the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review.
Judges are appointed by the department and do not need Senate confirmation, which gives presidential administrations broad leeway to affect the general direction of the courts.
Under the Biden administration, the Board of Immigration Appeals vastly expanded illegal immigrants’ rights, giving them the power to delay cases, lowering the bar for asylum claims and making it easier to argue that a situation constitutes persecution.
Over the past 21 months, the Trump administration has wiped away that leniency and imposed strict rules, including tighter evidentiary standards and accelerated case processing.
The board has said serious criminal records generally trump family ties when it comes to balancing factors in a deportation decision.
The board has ruled that it should be nearly impossible for someone from a European Union country to gain asylum, given their nations’ general commitment to democracy and rights. The board also said the change in regimes in Venezuela was so momentous that the shift could undercut asylum claims from those who fled under the ousted Maduro government.
The board said illegal immigrants who paid smugglers to bring their children to the U.S. can be deemed to have forfeited the “good moral character” requirement for earning cancellation of removal.
The case involved a man who received an immigration court summons by mail in 2019 for a 2020 hearing. The summons was returned as undeliverable. The man did not appear for the 2020 hearing and was ordered deported.
He had asked that his case be reopened because he had not received the notice.
The new decision closes out his case.
Contact the author
Please read our comment policy before commenting.