Garcia-Flores v. Gonzales
Decision Date | 23 February 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 05-3689.,05-3689. |
Citation | 477 F.3d 439 |
Parties | Noe Dolores GARCIA-FLORES, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
ON BRIEF: Nicoleta D. Wojnar, Wojnar & Associates, Cleveland, Ohio, for Petitioner. John A. Nolet, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before MARTIN and GUY, Circuit Judges; ROSE, District Judge.*
Petitioner Noe Dolores Garcia-Flores entered the United States from Mexico in 1996 without inspection. He was arrested by the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1999 and served with a notice to appear, which charged that he was subject to removal and notified him of removal proceedings. On the same day, he was conditionally released on his own recognizance, after agreeing to report for any hearing or interview as directed, to report to an INS officer every month, and not to change his place of residence without written permission from the INS officer.
In July of 2000, the Immigration Court mailed Garcia-Flores a second notice to appear, advising him that his case was set for a hearing on May 11, 2001. Garcia-Flores did not appear at the hearing, and now claims that he never received the notice. The immigration judge conducted the hearing in absentia pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b), and ordered Garcia-Flores removed to Mexico based on his failure to appear.
In August of 2004, Garcia-Flores learned of the in absentia order, and filed a motion to reopen the deportation proceedings and to request a stay of deportation, based on his contention that he had never received the notice. The motion was denied by the immigration judge, who found that Garcia-Flores was properly served with the initial notice to appear, and that he could not establish that he did not receive the second notice regarding the hearing date, due in part to his failure to file an affidavit stating as much. This decision was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals on May 12, 2005, and Garcia-Flores now seeks review of that decision by this Court.
On July 11, 2005 — after the BIA decision — Garcia-Flores was served with a notice to report for removal to Mexico. He failed to report as directed.1 A year later, in July of 2006, he was taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement Officers. As a result of Garcia-Flores's failure to report for removal during the pendency of his appeals, the government now moves to dismiss the appeal based on the fugitive-disentitlement doctrine.
"Pursuant to th[e] doctrine of fugitive disentitlement, we have dismissed the direct appeals of defendants who fled the jurisdiction during an appeal and remained at large." United States v. Lanier, 123 F.3d 945, 946 (6th Cir.1997). The Supreme Court has cautioned the Courts of Appeals that fugitive disentitlement is not appropriate in cases where there is no connection between the fugitive status and the appellate process. Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234, 249, 113 S.Ct. 1199, 122 L.Ed.2d 581 (1993) (). Despite these limitations, Ortega-Rodriguez also recognized that "dismissal by an appellate court after a defendant has fled its jurisdiction [as opposed to that of the district court] serves an important deterrent function and advances an interest in efficient, dignified appellate practice." Id. at 242, 113 S.Ct. 1199.
The Seventh Circuit has aptly explained the application of this rationale in the context of an appeal from an unfavorable order of an immigration court:
Litigation entails reciprocal obligations: an appellant (or petitioner) who demands that the United States respect a favorable outcome must ensure that an adverse decision also can be carried out. When an alien fails to report for custody, this sets up the situation that Antonio-Martinez [v. INS] called "heads I win, tails you'll never find me." 317 F.3d [1089,] 1093 [(9th Cir.2003)]. A litigant whose disappearance makes an adverse judgment difficult if not impossible to enforce cannot expect favorable action. We observed in Sarlund...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Figueroa v. Attorney Gen. U.S.
..., 517 F.3d 1201, 1204–05 (10th Cir. 2008) ; Giri v. Keisler , 507 F.3d 833, 835–36 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam); Garcia-Flores v. Gonzales , 477 F.3d 439, 441–42 (6th Cir. 2007) ; Sapoundjiev v. Ashcroft , 376 F.3d 727, 728–30 (7th Cir. 2004) ; Antonio-Martinez v. INS , 317 F.3d 1089, 1091–......
- U.S. v. Flores
-
State v. Favela
...to retain jurisdiction over his claim.” United States v. Ashraf, 628 F.3d 813, 822 (6th Cir.2011); see also Garcia–Flores v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 439, 441 n. 1 (6th Cir.2007) (recognizing that “removal of an alien ... does not moot a pending appeal” (omission in original) (internal quotation ......
-
United States v. Martirossian
...to litigants who, like Martirossian, do not surrender themselves to law enforcement authorities. See, e.g. , Garcia-Flores v. Gonzales , 477 F.3d 439, 442 (6th Cir. 2007). So too, a defendant need not be present in and leave a jurisdiction to become a fugitive; the mere refusal to report fo......
-
ELIMINATING THE FUGITIVE DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE IN IMMIGRATION MATTERS.
...(145) See, e.g., Qian Gao v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d at 176; Giri v. Reisler, 507 F.3d 833. 835 (5th Cir. 2007); Garcia-Flores v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 439, 442 (6th Gir. 2007); Sapoundjiev v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 727, 729 (7th Cir. (146) Bright v. Holder, 649 F.3d 397, 400 (5th Cir. 2011), cert, den......
-
Fugitives in Immigration: a Call for Legislative Guidelines on Disentitlement
...Degen. See, e.g., Giri v. Keisler, 507 F.3d 833 (5th Cir. 2007); Gao v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2007); Garcia Flores v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 439 (6th Cir. 2007); Sapoundjiev v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 727 (7th Cir. 2004); Antonio-Martinez v. INS, 317 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2003); Ofosu v. McE......
-
Review Proceedings
...defendant “deliberately remained away from the United States” following indictment during appellate process); Garcia-Flores v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 439, 441-42 (6th Cir. 2007) (appeal dismissed because undocumented immigrant failed to report for removal proceedings); U.S. v. Jacob, 714 F.3d 1......