G-Y-R

Cite as 

 (BIA 2001)                                   Interim Decision #3458




                            In re G-Y-R-, Respondent

                              Decided October 19, 2001
                           U.S. Department of Justice
                     Executive Office for Immigration Review
                         Board of Immigration Appeals


(1) When an alien fails to appear at removal proceedings for which notice of the hearing was
   served by mail, an in absentia order may only be entered where the alien has received, or
   can be charged with receiving, a Notice to Appear (Form I-862) informing the alien of the
   statutory address obligations associated with removal proceedings and of the consequences
   of failing to provide a current address, pursuant to section 239(a)(1)(F) of the Immigration
   and Nationality Act, 

(a)(1)(F) (Supp. V 1999).
(2) Entry of an in absentia order of removal is inappropriate where the record reflects
   that the alien did not receive, or could not be charged with receiving, the Notice to Appear
   that was served by certified mail at an address obtained from documents filed with the
   Immigration and Naturalization Service several years earlier.

Pro se

FOR THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE: Kimberley Joy Shepherd,
Assistant District Counsel

BEFORE: Board En Banc: SCIALABBA, Acting Chairman; DUNNE, Vice Chairman;
        SCHMIDT, HOLMES, HURWITZ, VILLAGELIU, FILPPU,
        GUENDELSBERGER, MATHON, ROSENBERG, GRANT, MOSCATO,
        MILLER, BRENNAN, ESPENOZA, OSUNA, and OHLSON, Board Members.
        Dissenting Opinion: JONES, Board Member, joined by COLE, Board Member.1
FILPPU, Board Member:

  The Immigration and Naturalization Service appeals from the
September 30, 1997, decision of the Immigration Judge to terminate
proceedings. The appeal will be dismissed.




1
  Board Members Frederick D. Hess and Roger Pauley did not participate in the decision in
this case.

                                             181
Cite as 

 (BIA 2001)                                  Interim Decision #3458




                                 I. BACKGROUND
   The respondent, a native and citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States
without inspection on March 21, 1982, and 2 months later filed a Request for
Asylum in the United States (Form I-589) with the Service.2 On June 22, 1991,
the respondent submitted an Alien Address Report Card (Form I-104), updating
her address with the Service.
   On an undisclosed date in 1997, the Service mailed an appointment notice to
the respondent for an asylum interview on July 2, 1997. That notice was mailed
to the address provided by the respondent in 1991, but we do not know whether
she actually received it. The respondent did not appear for her scheduled
interview.
   On July 7, 1997, the Service sent to the respondent, by certified mail to that
same address, a Notice to Appear (Form I-862) for a removal hearing scheduled
for September 30, 1997. We understand from the Service’s brief that the
respondent did not receive the Notice to Appear because it was returned to the
Service by the Postal Service.
   When the respondent did not appear for her hearing, the Service moved to
proceed with the hearing in absentia. The Immigration Judge offered to
administratively close proceedings to allow the Service time to serve the
respondent again, but the Service elected to proceed on the record. Noting the
long delay by the Service in acting upon the respondent’s asylum application, the
Immigration Judge was not satisfied that the respondent was aware of the
removal proceedings, “thereby initiating the requirement that she keep the Court
and Service informed of an address or bear the consequences for failure to do
so.” The Immigration Judge terminated proceedings without prejudice. The
Immigration Judge’s order was thereafter sent by certified mail to the same
address as that on the Notice to Appear, and that mailing was returned to the
Immigration Court with the annotation “Moved Left No Address.”
   On appeal, the Service contends that the Immigration Judge should not have
terminated proceedings but should have instead ordered the respondent removed
in absentia. The Service argues that proper notice of proceedings was effected
through “attempted delivery to the last address provided by the alien” pursuant
to section 239(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 

(a)
(Supp. V 1999). The Service also asserts that section 265 of the Act, 

 (1994), places an affirmative duty on the respondent to keep the


2
  On appeal, the Service states that the respondent became a class member under American
Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh, 

 (N.D. Cal. 1991), and registered for
benefits pursuant to the settlement agreement in that case. We note, too, that the respondent
is the beneficiary of a visa petition that was filed by her husband and approved by the
Service on December 26, 1990.

                                            182
Cite as 

 (BIA 2001)                                    Interim Decision #3458




Attorney General apprised of her whereabouts or face certain consequences
under section 266 of the Act, 

 (1994 & Supp. V 1999).
   The respondent has not replied to the Service’s appeal. It appears that she is
unaware of these proceedings.
   Thus, in this case, we know that the Notice to Appear was not personally
served on the respondent but was sent to her by certified mail. We also know
that the respondent did not receive the Notice to Appear because the certified
mailing was returned. Further, we know that the respondent did not receive any
notice of the hearing because the Notice to Appear contained her first and only
notice of the date, time, and place of her removal hearing.

                                        II. ISSUE
   The issue is whether an Immigration Judge may order an alien removed in
absentia when the Service mails the Notice to Appear to the last address it has
for an alien, but the record reflects that the alien did not receive the Notice to
Appear, and the notice of hearing it contains, and therefore has never been
notified of the initiation of removal proceedings or the alien’s address
obligations under section 239(a)(1) of the Act.
   This question can best be answered by a careful reading of the pertinent
statutory provisions—specifically, sections 239(a) and (c) and 240(b)(5) of the
Act, 

(a) and (c) and 1229a(b)(5) (Supp. V 1999). We
understand these interrelated provisions collectively to preclude the entry of an
in absentia order of removal when the alien has not received the Notice to
Appear and thus does not know of the particular address obligations associated
with removal proceedings.

                        III. THE NOTICE TO APPEAR
                           A. Initiation of Proceedings
  Removal proceedings are initiated when an alien is provided notice of
proceedings through the service of a Notice to Appear. Section 239(a)(1) of the
Act. The contents of the Notice to Appear are carefully prescribed in section
239(a)(1) of the Act, which provides as follows:
     In removal proceedings under section 240, written notice (in this section referred to
  as a “notice to appear”) shall be given in person to the alien (or, if personal service is not
  practicable, through service by mail to the alien or to the alien’s counsel of record, if any)
  specifying the following:
       (A) The nature of the proceedings against the alien.

       (B) The legal authority under which the proceedings are conducted.



                                             183
Cite as 

 (BIA 2001)                                  Interim Decision #3458




       (C) The acts or conduct alleged to be in violation of law.

       (D) The charges against the alien and the statutory provisions alleged to have been
   violated.
        (E) The alien may be represented by counsel and the alien will be provided (i) a
   period of time to secure counsel under subsection (b)(1) of this section and (ii) a current
   list of counsel prepared under subsection (b)(2) of this section.
       (F) (i) The requirement that the alien must immediately provide (or have
   provided) the Attorney General with a written record of an address and telephone
   number (if any) at which the alien may be contacted respecting proceedings under
   section 240.

           (ii) The requirement that the alien must provide the Attorney General
       immediately with a written record of any change of the alien’s address or
       telephone number.
          (iii) The consequences under section 240(b)(5) of failure to provide
       address and telephone information pursuant to this subparagraph.
       (G) (i) The time and place at which the proceedings will be held.

           (ii) The consequences under section 240(b)(5) of the failure, except under
       exceptional circumstances, to appear at such proceedings. (Emphasis added.)

    Thus, as indicated by subparagraph (F)(i), the Notice to Appear apprises the
alien that he or she has a particular address obligation respecting removal
proceedings: the necessity of providing an address “at which the alien may be
contacted respecting proceedings under section 240.” As indicated by
subparagraph (F)(iii), the Notice to Appear also warns the alien of the potential
for an in absentia order if the alien fails to provide address information as
instructed by the Notice to Appear—i.e., “[t]he consequences under section
240(b)(5) [the in absentia provisions] of failure to provide address and
telephone information pursuant to this subparagraph.”

                                B. Means of Service
    The alien must be properly served with the Notice to Appear before the
particular address obligations of removal proceedings are fixed and the
Immigration Judge is authorized to proceed in absentia. In the past, proceedings
could be initiated by a notice of proceedings that was personally served on the
alien or was sent by certified mail. See section 242B(a)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252b(a)(1) (1994). In fact, notice was deemed sufficient if the alien could
be charged with having received the certified mailing. See Matter of Grijalva,

 (BIA 1995) (allowing an alien to be charged with receipt
when the certified mail receipt has been signed “‘by the respondent or a

                                            184
Cite as 

 (BIA 2001)                                Interim Decision #3458




responsible person at the respondent’s address’” (quoting Matter of Huete,

 (BIA 1991))). The certified mail requirement has been
removed, and the statute now simply permits “service by mail” if personal
service is “not practicable.” Section 239(a)(1) of the Act.
    However, if the alien does not actually receive the mailing, as is the case
before us, the statute specifies that the sufficiency of service will depend on
whether there is “proof of attempted delivery to the last address provided by the
alien in accordance with subsection (a)(1)(F).” Section 239(c) of the Act
(emphasis added). Thus, in cases where the alien does not get the mailing, only
the use of an address that satisfies section 239(a)(1)(F) of the Act will suffice
for the initiation of proceedings.
                          C. In Absentia Proceedings
    If an alien fails to appear after he or she has received a notice of
hearing—whether it is the notice of hearing contained in the Notice to Appear
or a subsequent hearing notice—the Immigration Judge may proceed in absentia.
The specific authorization for doing so is found in section 240(b)(5) of the Act,
which provides as follows:
   CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO APPEAR. —

           (A) IN GENERAL.—Any alien who, after written notice required under
       paragraph (1) or (2) of section 239(a) has been provided to the alien or the alien’s
       counsel of record, does not attend a proceeding under this section, shall be ordered
       removed in absentia if the Service establishes by clear, unequivocal, and convincing
       evidence that the written notice was so provided and that the alien is removable (as
       defined in subsection (e)(2) of this section). The written notice by the Attorney
       General shall be considered sufficient for purposes of this subparagraph if provided
       at the most recent address provided under section 239(a)(1)(F).
           (B) NO NOTICE IF FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADDRESS
       INFORMATION.—No written notice shall be required under subparagraph (A) if
       the alien has failed to provide the address required under section
       239(a)(1)(F). (Emphasis added.)

Thus, in cases where the hearing notice is sent by mail, the entry of an in
absentia order is authorized when the alien has been given written notice of the
removal hearing “at the most recent address provided under section
239(a)(1)(F).” Section 240(b)(5) of the Act.
    Therefore, the critical question for in absentia cases involving mailed notice
is whether the notice is mailed to an address that qualifies as an “address
provided under section 239(a)(1)(F).” If an address does not, then the
Immigration Judge may not enter an in absentia order of removal because the
statutory notice requirement has not been satisfied.


                                          185
Cite as 

 (BIA 2001)                          Interim Decision #3458




               IV. A “SECTION 239(a)(1)(F)” ADDRESS
    In this instance, the Service sent the respondent’s Notice to Appear by
certified mail to the most recent address it had on file—an address that she
provided on a change of address form in 1991, 6 years before the Service
attempted to place her in proceedings. The Service has offered proof that it
attempted to deliver the Notice to Appear to that address.
    The question is whether the address used by the Service to mail the Notice
to Appear and notice of hearing equates to “the last address provided by the alien
in accordance with subsection (a)(1)(F),” as required for the initiation of
proceedings under section 239(c) of the Act, or “the most recent address
provided under section 239(a)(1)(F),” as required for the entry of an in absentia
removal order under section 240(b)(5)(A) of the Act. The sufficiency of notice
therefore rests squarely on what constitutes a section 239(a)(1)(F) address.

                A. Actual Notice and Section 239(a)(1)(F)
    Due process requires that the alien be provided with notice of proceedings
and an opportunity to be heard. Landon v. Plasencia, 

(1982); Bridges v. Wixon, 

 (1945); Kaoru Yamataya v.
Fisher, 

 (1903). It is therefore critical that notice be
reasonably calculated to apprise the alien of his or her scheduled hearing and the
immigration charges levied by the Service. See Mullane v. Central Hanover
Bank & Trust Co., 

 (1950).
    As a general matter, actual notice will always suffice. See, e.g., Matter of
Pence, 

 (7th Cir.1990). Consequently, if an alien actually
receives a Notice to Appear that is mailed to a section 239(a)(1) address, such
as an address from any form filed with the Service, the alien will be put on actual
notice of the proceedings, including notice of the obligation to keep the
Attorney General informed of any address changes and of the in absentia
consequences for failing to do so. Thus, an address taken from an asylum
application or a change of address form that accomplishes actual delivery of the
Notice to Appear qualifies as a “section 239(a)(1)(F)” address because the alien
will actually be informed of the initiation of removal proceedings and the rights
and obligations that attach. In the terms of the statute, the alien will “have
provided” an address at which he or she can be “contacted respecting
proceedings” if any earlier provided address was effective for receiving the
Notice to Appear and the alien has not provided any written record of an address
change. Section 239(a)(1)(F)(i) of the Act.
            B. Constructive Notice and Section 239(a)(1)(F)
     This case, however, does not involve actual notice of proceedings. Rather,
it involves constructive notice in the form of undelivered written notice. The

                                       186
Cite as 

 (BIA 2001)                              Interim Decision #3458




sufficiency of constructive notice depends on whether the notice comports with
the requirements of the applicable statute and the expectations of due process.
See generally Mullane v. Central Hanvover Bank & Trust 

 San
Augustine County, Tex. v. Cameron County Water Imp. Dist. No. 10, 

 (5th Cir. 1953).
    The statute allows a hearing to be conducted in absentia, but only when the
alien was sent written notice “at the most recent address provided under section
239(a)(1)(F).” Section 240(b)(5)(A) of the Act. The literal language of this
provision requires that the address be one provided both by the alien and “under
section 239(a)(1)(F).”3 

 As we understand the in absentia provisions in
section 240(b)(5)(A), when read in light of section 239(a)(1)(F) itself, the alien
cannot provide a “section 239(a)(1)(F)” address (or “have provided” it and
therefore not need to change it) unless the alien has been advised to do so.
    In this regard, it is section 239(a)(1)(F) itself that requires the Notice to
Appear to inform the alien of the particular address obligations associated with
removal proceedings. Section 239(a)(1)(F)(i) of the Act. Section 239(a)(1)(F)
mandates that the Notice to Appear also inform the alien of the in absentia
consequences of failing to comply with those address requirements. Section
239(a)(1)(F)(iii) of the Act. Together, these provisions lead to the conclusion
that an address does not become a section 239(a)(1)(F) address unless the alien
receives the warnings and advisals contained in the Notice to Appear. This
conclusion is reinforced by the parallel language of section 239(c), which
permits service by mail when the address used is “provided by the alien in
accordance with subsection (a)(1)(F).” Section 239(c) of the Act. Simply put,
an alien cannot be expected to provide an address “under” or “in accordance
with” section 239(a)(1)(F) until the alien has been informed of the particular
address obligations contained in section 239(a)(1)(F) itself.
    Accordingly, we find that an address can be a section 239(a)(1)(F) address
only if the alien has first been informed of the particular statutory address
obligations associated with removal proceedings and of the consequences of
failing to provide a current address. Because that information is first
communicated in the Notice to Appear, the alien must receive the Notice to
Appear before he or she can “provide” an address in accordance with section
239(a)(1)(F) of the Act. In cases where the Service uses the mail to deliver the
Notice to Appear to the alien, the “last address” or the “most recent address”

3
   We look to the precise language of the statute to construe its meaning. See Chevron,
U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 

 (1984). We
do not deem it necessary to resort to legislative history, but note nonetheless that the
legislative history behind sections 239 and 240 of the Act does not provide meaningful
guidance here because the explanatory material simply paraphrases the language that
appears in the statute today. See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-828 (1996), available in 

; H.R. Rep. No. 104-469(I) (1996), available in 

.

                                         187
Cite as 

 (BIA 2001)                                  Interim Decision #3458




provided by the alien “in accordance with subsection (a)(1)(F)” will necessarily
be an address arising from the alien’s receipt of the advisals contained in the
Notice to Appear.
    Once the advisals in the Notice to Appear are conveyed, serious
consequences attach to an in absentia order of removal, and the avenues for
relief are extremely limited. See section 240(b)(7) of the Act. Once
proceedings have commenced, the alien must attend all scheduled hearings
before the Immigration Judge, unless excused by the Immigration Judge.
See 

(a) (2001). If the alien fails to appear for a scheduled
hearing, the Immigration Judge may proceed with the hearing in the alien’s
absence and order the alien removed in absentia. Accordingly, the statutory
notice requirements are precise and require assiduous attention. See United
States v. Perez-Valdera, 

 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (noting that
Congress strengthened the notice requirements in recognition of the severity
of the consequences of an in absentia order). In fact, special allowances are
made when an alien has a meritorious challenge to the adequacy of notice. See
section 240(b)(5)(C) of the Act (exempting motions to reopen from the
180-day time limit when contesting an in absentia removal order on notice
grounds).4
                    C. Section 239(a)(1)(F) in This Instance
    In this instance, the Notice to Appear never reached the respondent, and the
advisals were never conveyed. The Service argues that the failure of the Notice
to Appear to reach the respondent does not mean the respondent lacked proper
notice of proceedings. Rather, the Service maintains that the mailing of the
Notice to Appear to the last address provided by the alien satisfies the statutory
notice requirements. Moreover, it argues that the alien should be held
accountable for the mail not reaching her because she was aware of her address
obligations vis-à-vis the Service and, by implication, invited defective notice of
proceedings when she failed to keep her address information current.
    However, a section 239(a)(1)(F) address is an address where an alien can be
“contacted respecting proceedings under section 240.” Section 239(a)(1)(F)(i)
of the Act. The Notice to Appear concerns the alien’s particular address
obligations regarding removal proceedings. Unless the respondent is chargeable
with having received the Notice to Appear and any notice of hearing contained


4
   The dissent identifies potential abuses that could arise under the statute. But the dissent
never explains how an address can be an address provided “under” or “in accordance with”
section 239(a)(1)(F) of the Act when that address was only given to the Service years in
advance of removal proceedings; nor does the dissent attempt to reconcile all of the relevant
statutory provisions at issue here.

                                            188
Cite as 

 (BIA 2001)                         Interim Decision #3458




therein, she has not been placed on notice of proceedings or on notice of the
date, time, and location of the removal hearing.
    As we read the statute, its intent is to accomplish actual notice. In those
instances where actual notice is not accomplished, the statute will permit
constructive notice when the alien is aware of the particular address obligations
of removal proceedings and then fails to provide an address for receiving
notices of hearing. Under the Service’s reading of the statute, however, no
attempt at actual notice is ever necessary. The alien’s address need not be
current or even extant; it may even predate the legislative developments that
created today’s in absentia consequences. In other words, according to the
Service, the notice requirements of the Act are satisfied whenever the Service
uses the alien’s last known address—no matter how old, incomplete, or
obviously inadequate that address may be.
    We do not agree. Simply mailing the Notice to Appear to an address
authorized under section 239(a)(1) does not automatically convert the alien’s
last known address into a section 239(a)(1)(F) address. While the statute may
permit the regular mailing of the Notice to Appear to the last known address, the
“(a)(1)” address so to speak, the statute does not authorize the entry of an in
absentia order unless the advisals in the Notice to Appear are properly conveyed,
at which time the address will have become an “(a)(1)(F)” address. In short, the
notice requirement leading to an in absentia order cannot be satisfied by mailing
the Notice to Appear to the last known address of the alien when the alien does
not receive the mailing. Again, the “last address” or the “most recent address”
provided by the alien “in accordance with” or “under” subsection (a)(1)(F) must
be an address consequent to the alien’s being put on notice of the particular
address obligations contained in the Notice to Appear.
    This does not mean, of course, that the alien must personally receive, read,
and understand the Notice to Appear for the notice requirements to be satisfied.
An alien can, in certain circumstances, be properly charged with receiving
notice, even though he or she did not personally see the mailed document. If,
for example, the Notice to Appear reaches the correct address but does not
reach the alien through some failure in the internal workings of the household,
the alien can be charged with receiving proper notice, and proper service will
have been effected. See Matter of Grijalva, supra; Matter of Huete, supra.
However, if we know that the Notice to Appear did not reach the alien and that
the alien cannot be properly charged with receiving it, then the mailing address
does not qualify as a “section 239(a)(1)(F)” address. In turn, if the mailing
address does not qualify as a section 239(a)(1)(F) address, then an in absentia
order predicated on mailed notice to that address may not ensue.
    In summary, the Service may either serve the Notice to Appear and its notice
of hearing by personal service or by mail. When the Service elects to serve by
mail, the statute permits the Notice to Appear to be mailed to the last address
the Service has on file for the alien. If the alien actually receives or can be

                                      189
Cite as 

 (BIA 2001)                         Interim Decision #3458




charged with receiving that mailed notice, then the address used by the Service
qualifies as a section 239(a)(1)(F) address, and in absentia proceedings are
thereafter authorized. If, however, we know that the alien did not receive the
Notice to Appear and the notice of hearing it contains, then the alien cannot be
on notice of either removal proceedings or the address obligations particular to
removal proceedings. In that instance, the address used by the Service cannot
qualify as a section 239(a)(1)(F) address, and the entry of an in absentia order
is precluded. Thus, we find that when the pertinent provisions are read together,
the statute requires that the alien receive (or be charged with receiving) the
Notice to Appear containing the notice of hearing before an in absentia order
of removal may be entered.

                           V. REGISTRATION
    The Service correctly points out that the respondent has an obligation to
provide the Service with a current address pursuant to the registration
requirements of the Act. Virtually every alien in the United States is under an
affirmative obligation to report address changes to the Attorney General,
regardless of immigration status or circumstances. Section 265(a) of the Act.
All aliens who remain in the United States for more than 30 days have a duty to
register with the Attorney General, unless they have been expressly exempted
from the requirement. Section 262 of the Act, 

 (1994). If
registered, the alien has a duty to keep the Attorney General apprised of any
address changes. Section 265(a) of the Act. The only aliens who are usually
exempt from registration are nonimmigrant representatives of foreign countries
and the staff of international organizations. See section 221(b) of the Act,

(b) (1994).
    The statutory consequences of failing to report an address change as required
by section 265(a) include a possible misdemeanor conviction, with a potential
fine of up to $200 and not more than 30 days’ imprisonment, and placement into
removal proceedings pursuant to chapter 4 of Title 8 of the United States Code.
See section 266(b) of the Act. These penalties are not imposed, however, if the
alien can demonstrate that the failure to keep his or her address current “was
reasonably excusable or was not willful.” Id.; see also section 237(a)(3)(A) of
the Act, 

(a)(3)(A) (Supp. V 1999).
    Although the failure to comply with section 265 and its surrounding
provisions may incur various penalties, the entry of an in absentia order of
removal is not one of them. In absentia orders arise from, and are governed by,
section 240(b)(5) of the Act. It is that provision, not any of the registration
provisions, that contains the requirements and the legal authority for the entry
of an in absentia order of removal. We therefore find that the registration
provisions do not authorize the issuance of an in absentia order of removal as
a consequence of their violation.

                                      190
Cite as 

 (BIA 2001)                                 Interim Decision #3458




           VI. REGULATORY ADDRESS OBLIGATIONS
    Finally, we observe that the regulations are consistent with our reading of the
statute.
    The regulations at 

 (2001) require that the Notice to Appear
provide as follows:
   A statement that the alien must advise the Immigration Court having administrative
   control over the Record of Proceeding of his or her current address and telephone
   number and a statement that failure to provide such information may result in an in
   absentia hearing in accordance with § 3.26.

(b)(7). That regulation also specifies the alien’s address
obligations to the Immigration Court as follows:
   If the alien’s address is not provided on the Order to Show Cause or Notice to Appear,
   or if the address on the Order to Show Cause or Notice to Appear is incorrect, the alien
   must provide to the Immigration Court where the charging document has been filed,
   within five days of service of that document, a written notice of an address and
   telephone number at which the alien can be contacted.

(d)(1). In turn, 

 (2001), which pertains to in
absentia proceedings, specifically provides that an Immigration Judge may enter
an in absentia order in removal proceedings when the following conditions are
satisfied:
   The Service establishes by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that written
   notice of the time and place of proceedings and written notice of the consequences of
   failure to appear were provided to the alien or the alien’s counsel of record.

(c)(2). The regulations further provide as follows:
   Written notice to the alien shall be considered sufficient for purposes of this section if
   it was provided at the most recent address provided by the alien. If the respondent fails
   to provide his or her address as required under § 3.15(d), no written notice shall be
   required for an Immigration Judge to proceed with an in absentia hearing.

(d).
    We understand the regulations to derive from and to track the language of the
statute. See Inspection and Expedited Removal of Aliens; Detention and
Removal of Aliens; Conduct of Removal Proceedings; Asylum Procedures,

, 10,322 (1997) (noting that the regulations pertaining to
section 240 of the Act “follow exactly the requirements of the Act”). We find
the regulations to be consistent with the statute and our reading of it. Thus, the



                                           191
Cite as 

 (BIA 2001)                          Interim Decision #3458




regulations, like the Act, do not authorize the entry of an in absentia removal
order unless the alien is properly charged with having received notice at an
address that qualifies as a section 239(a)(1)(F) address.

                            VII. CONCLUSION
    In this case, the Notice to Appear was mailed to an address that was provided
before the respondent was placed in removal proceedings, before she was
apprised of the particular address obligations pertaining to removal proceedings,
and before she was advised of the charges against her or the in absentia
consequences of failing to keep her address information current for removal
hearing purposes. The record clearly reflects that the Notice to Appear never
reached the respondent. We therefore know that she did not receive the advisals
contained therein.
    Based on the pertinent statutory provisions, we find that an Immigration
Judge may not order an alien removed in absentia when the Service mails the
Notice to Appear to the last address it has on file for an alien, but the record
reflects that the alien did not receive the Notice to Appear, and the notice of
hearing it contains, and therefore has never been notified of the initiation of
removal proceedings or the alien’s address obligations under section 239(a)(1)
of the Act. Because, in this instance, the Service did not establish that the
respondent received or can be charged with receiving that notice, the
Immigration Judge could not have proceeded in absentia. It was therefore
proper for the Immigration Judge to terminate proceedings.
    ORDER: The appeal of the Immigration and Naturalization Service is
dismissed.


DISSENTING OPINION: Philemina McNeill Jones, Board Member, in
which Patricia A. Cole, Board Member, joined
    I respectfully dissent.
    I find problems in both the majority’s interpretation and its implementation
of the notice provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act. For the reasons
set forth below, I would sustain the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s
appeal and remand proceedings to the Immigration Judge for the entry of an in
absentia order of removal.
    According to the majority, sections 239(a)(1)(F) and 240(b)(5) of the Act,

(a)(1)(F) and 1229a(b)(5) (Supp. V 1999), permit the Service
to mail the Notice to Appear (Form I-862) to the alien’s last known address.
However, that address may be inadequate for the Immigration Judge to proceed
with removal proceedings in absentia. I disagree with this reading of the statute.



                                       192
Cite as 

 (BIA 2001)                                  Interim Decision #3458




   It is well established that we must “‘give effect, if possible, to every clause
and word of a statute.’” United States v. Menasche, 

(1955) (quoting Inhabitants of Montclair Township v. Ramsdell, 

 (1883)); see also Walters v. Metro. Educ. Enters., Inc., 

(1997) (stating that a statute “must be interpreted, if possible, to give each word
some operative effect”); Market Co. v. Hoffman, 

 (1879)
(opining that, to the degree possible, no clause, sentence, or word in a statute
should be construed as superfluous, void, or insignificant). In this instance, the
Act provides the following:
   In removal proceedings under section 240, written notice (in this section referred to as
   a “notice to appear”) shall be given in person to the alien (or, if personal service is not
   practicable, through service by mail to the alien or to the alien’s counsel of record, if
   any) . . . .

Section 239(a)(1) of the Act (emphasis added). Because personal service is not
practicable in most cases, the Service is authorized by statute to send the Notice
to Appear by regular mail.
    If we accept the majority’s reading of section 239(a)(1), the use of regular
mail is so impractical that it is, in effect, read out of the Act. According to the
majority, the Immigration Judge may proceed in absentia only where the record
reflects that the alien has actually received the Notice to Appear or can be
“charged with” receiving it. However, regular mail can establish neither actual
nor constructive notice because, unlike certified mail or other means of mail
delivery, it does not generate a signed receipt or other evidence of receipt. Cf.
Matter of Grijalva, 

 (BIA 1995). Thus, in the vast majority of
cases, the only way in which an Immigration Judge will ever know that the alien
received a notice of hearing is if the alien actually appears for the hearing.
    Under the majority’s reading of the statute, the Service would be ill-advised
to rely on the regular mail to initiate proceedings. If the Service uses regular
mail, it conveys virtual control over the initiation of proceedings to the alien.
To avoid a removal hearing, the alien need only ignore the Notice to Appear
when it comes in the mail and, should it ever become necessary, simply deny
that it was ever received at his or her address. Alternatively, the alien can simply
change his or her residence and/or not report an address change to the Service,
knowing that he or she is untraceable for purposes of receiving the Notice to
Appear. As the majority has pointed out, few consequences attach for failing to
report address changes to the Service and an alien who wishes to delay or even
elude proceedings can easily do so. I find it completely incongruous to
conclude that Congress intended both to permit and to eviscerate the use of
regular mail to initiate removal proceedings.
    Moreover, if regular mail is ineffectual, the statutory notice provisions
become unwieldy. The majority strains to interpret other provisions that
presume regular mail will suffice. In particular, section 239(a)(1)(F) of the Act

                                            193
Cite as 

 (BIA 2001)                           Interim Decision #3458




has a requirement “that the alien must immediately provide (or have provided)
the Attorney General with a written record of an address and telephone number
(if any) at which the alien may be contacted respecting proceedings under
section 240.”
     The majority’s reading of this language creates a paradox: how can an alien
“have provided” an address to the Immigration Court before he or she has been
told to provide one? The only way the alien can provide an address to the
Immigration Court prior to proceedings is by providing an address to the
Service, with the Service in turn providing it to the Immigration Court via the
Notice to Appear. The majority’s post facto validation of the address on the
Notice to Appear is a forced and impractical reading of the statute, especially
when the language of section 239(c) of the Act specifies that attempted delivery
by regular mail to the alien’s last known address is sufficient notice.
     I find that the statute permits—even intends—that removal proceedings be
initiated through the mailing of a Notice to Appear by regular mail. Once the
Service mails the Notice to Appear to the “most recent address” provided by the
alien, under section 239(a)(1)(F) of the Act, an Immigration Judge can order an
alien removed in absentia. Section 240(b)(5) of the Act; cf. 

(c)(2), (d) (2001). If the last address provided by the alien is inadequate,
it is incumbent on the alien to provide a better one or forfeit the right to notice.
Section 240(b)(5)(B) of the Act.
     If the Service cannot rely on the last address provided by the alien, then the
in absentia provisions of the Act are applicable only to those cases in which the
alien shows up for the hearing or otherwise concedes receipt of the Notice to
Appear. Narrowly applying the in absentia provisions to this class of cases
undermines the very efficacy of those provisions. In fact, the majority here
places the Service in the untenable position of relying on an address that, almost
by definition, is not reliable. In the end, the Service will have no choice but to
resort to certified mail, a requirement that Congress purposefully removed from
the statute. See the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility
Act of 1996, Division C of 

, 

-546,
3009-587.
     Ultimately, the majority’s decision undermines the enforceability of the
Act’s in absentia provisions. I find the majority’s holding to be at odds with the
plain language of the statute and incompatible with any effort to create an
effective immigration court system.
     Accordingly, I would sustain the Service’s appeal.




                                        194