M-D

Cite as 

 (BIA 2002)                                  Interim Decision #3485




                             In re M-D-, Respondent
                            Decided December 18, 2002
                          U.S. Department of Justice
                    Executive Office for Immigration Review
                        Board of Immigration Appeals

(1) An alien may be charged with receipt of a notice to appear and notice of the hearing
   date, where the notice is sent by certified mail to the alien’s correct address, but it is
   returned by the United States Postal Service marked “unclaimed.”

(2) The regulations at 

 (2002) do not require that the notice to appear or
   notice of hearing in removal proceedings be sent to the alien or the alien’s attorney of
   record by regular mail, as opposed to certified mail.
FOR RESPONDENT: John S. Richbourg, Esquire, Memphis, Tennessee

FOR THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE: John F. Cook II,
Assistant District Counsel
BEFORE: Board Panel: HOLMES, FILPPU, and OSUNA, Board Members.

OSUNA, Board Member:

   On January 23, 2001, an Immigration Judge entered an order of removal in
absentia, stating that the respondent failed to appear for the scheduled hearing
and finding all claims for relief abandoned. On February 22, 2001, the
respondent filed a motion to reopen to rescind that order pursuant to section
240(b)(5)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(b)(5)(C) (2000), arguing that he did not receive proper notice of the
hearing. In a decision dated March 9, 2001, the Immigration Judge denied the
respondent’s motion to reopen. The respondent has appealed from that
decision. The appeal will be dismissed.

               I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
   The respondent is a 39-year-old native and citizen of Guinea who entered
the United States on or about February 16, 2000, without inspection. On
November 16, 2000, the respondent filed an asylum application with the
Immigration and Naturalization Service. An asylum officer referred the
application to the Immigration Court on November 24, 2000.
   On November 29, 2000, a Notice to Appear (Form I-862) was served on
the respondent. The Notice to Appear was served by certified mail at the


                                            540
Cite as 

 (BIA 2002)                        Interim Decision #3485



address the respondent had provided on his Application for Asylum and
Withholding of Removal (Form I-589). Included in the Notice to Appear was
a notice for a hearing before the Immigration Judge, set for January 23, 2001.
   According to postal records, an attempt was made to deliver the certified
mail envelope on December 2, 2000, and a second notice was left on
December 12, 2000, indicating that the Post Office was holding mail for the
respondent. Because no one signed for the envelope on either occasion and
the respondent did not appear at the Post Office to claim his mail, the
envelope was returned by the Post Office on December 18, 2000, marked
“unclaimed.”
   The respondent did not appear at the January 23, 2001, hearing, and the
Immigration Judge issued an order of removal in absentia. In his motion to
reopen, the respondent claimed that despite checking his mail every day in
anticipation of a decision from the asylum office, he did not receive any
notice of the hearing. The Immigration Judge denied the motion, finding, inter
alia, that the respondent received proper notice of the hearing pursuant to
section 239(a) of the Act, 

(a) (2000).
   On appeal, the respondent argues that there is no proof that he was served
with the Notice to Appear. He asserts further that it was a violation of
due process to send the notice by certified mail, even to the correct address,
and that he is entitled to reopening to apply for asylum.
   The record contains a copy of the notice mailed to the respondent’s
address, informing him of the pending removal proceedings and of the hearing
scheduled for January 23, 2001. The notice was sent to the respondent via
certified mail and returned, marked by the United States Postal Service as
“unclaimed.” The respondent does not assert that the notice was sent to an
incorrect address. Nor does he claim that he did not receive notification to
pick up mail from the Post Office. Rather, he contends that he did not receive
any correspondence from the asylum office or the Office of the Immigration
Judge prior to receiving the Immigration Judge’s removal decision. He argues
further that notice by certified mail violates his due process rights, and that
service by regular mail is more likely to reach the intended recipient. The
respondent maintains that the certificate of service required by 

 (2002) is sufficient proof of attempted delivery of regular mail and
that the regulations at 

 (2002) mandate service by regular
mail in removal proceedings.
                                     II. ISSUE
  We decide in this case whether an alien can be charged with receipt of a
notice to appear and notice of the hearing date, where the notice is sent by
certified mail to the respondent’s correct address, but is returned by the
United States Postal Service marked “unclaimed.”

                                        541
Cite as 

 (BIA 2002)                                   Interim Decision #3485



           III. RELEVANT STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
   The Due Process Clause protects aliens in removal proceedings and
includes the right to a full and fair hearing. Landon v. Plasencia, 

 (1982). Notice of proceedings is an important component of any
legal process. As the United States Supreme Court has noted,
  An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to
  be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprize
  interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present
  their objections. The notice must be of such nature as reasonably to convey the required
  information, and it must afford a reasonable time for those interested to make their
  appearance.

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 

 (1950)
(citations omitted). Therefore, the focus of the inquiry here is what notice is
required in removal proceedings and whether the nature of the notice required
is “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprize interested
parties of the pendency of the action.” 

   Personal service clearly is adequate notice. However, an alien need not
actually receive notice of a hearing to satisfy the requirements of due
process. See Farhoud v. INS, 

 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that
due process is satisfied if service is conducted in a manner “reasonably
calculated” to ensure that notice reaches the alien); United States v. Estrada-Trochez, 

 (5th Cir. 1995); see also Dobrota v. INS, 

 (9th Cir. 2002). The courts have upheld in absentia
deportation orders in proceedings where notice of the hearing was sent either
by first-class mail or by certified mail. Arrieta v. INS, 

(9th Cir. 1997) (holding that certified mail is sufficient even if no one signs
for it); United States v. 

 (finding that due process was
satisfied where first-class mail was returned); see also Weigner v. City of
New York, 

 (2d Cir. 1988) (finding sufficient a notice of
imminent tax foreclosure sent by first class mail). In a recent decision, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that an alien’s
due process rights were not violated when the Service sent a notice of a
removal hearing by regular mail to an address that the alien had provided
several years earlier. Dominguez v. United States Attorney General,

 (11th Cir. 2002) (citing United States v. 

).
   Congress has seen fit to amend the notice requirements for proceedings
under the Act a number of times in recent years. Prior to 1992, the Act
provided only that “the alien shall be given notice, reasonable under all the
circumstances, of the nature of the charges against him and of the time and
place at which the proceedings will be held.” Section 242(b)(1) of the Act,

(b)(1) (1988).

                                            542
Cite as 

 (BIA 2002)                                    Interim Decision #3485



   Congress amended the statute in 1990 by adding section 242B of the Act,
8 U.S.C. § 1252b (Supp. II 1990), governing deportation proceedings.
Effective as to any Order to Show Cause served after June 13, 1992, section
242B stated that with regard to both an Order to Show Cause and a notice of
the time and place of proceedings, “written notice shall be given in person to
the alien (or, if personal service is not practicable, such notice shall be given
by certified mail to the alien or to the alien’s counsel of record, if any).”
Sections 242B(a)(1), (2)(A) of the Act; see also Immigration Act of 1990,

(a), 

, 5061-62, amended by
Miscellaneous and Technical Immigration and Naturalization Amendments of
1991, 

(c)(6), 

, 1753; Matter of
Grijalva, 

 (BIA 1995). Therefore, at that time, certified
mail was made the required method of notification if personal service was not
practicable, and it remains so for deportation proceedings. See 

.
   The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,
Division C of 

 Stat. 3009-546, changed the
procedures with regard to notification of proceedings. In removal
proceedings, such as we consider here, the statute now provides that “written
notice . . . 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, 

(a)(1) (2000).
The statute states that service by mail under this section shall be sufficient
if there is proof of attempted delivery to the last address provided by the
alien in accordance with section 239(a)(1)(F) of the Act. Section 239(c) of
the Act. No particular method of mailing is specified. Although the Act no
longer requires that notice be sent by certified mail, service by certified mail
is not expressly disapproved. See sections 239(a)(1), (2)(A) of the Act
(regarding notice to appear and change in time or place of the proceedings).
   The applicable regulations at 

 state, in part:
  Service means physically presenting or mailing a document to the appropriate party or
  parties; except that an Order to Show Cause or Notice of Deportation Hearing shall be
  served in person to the alien, or by certified mail to the alien or the alien’s attorney and a
  Notice to Appear or Notice of Removal Hearing shall be served to the alien in person, or
  if personal service is not practicable, shall be served by regular mail to the alien or the
  alien’s attorney of record.

  Pursuant to 

(c) (2002), an Immigration Judge is required to
order an alien removed in absentia if the Service establishes by clear,
unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the alien is removable and that
written notice of the time and place of proceedings and of the consequences
of failure to appear were provided to the alien or to counsel of record.
Written notice is considered sufficient if it was provided at the most recent
address given by the alien.
                                             543
Cite as 

 (BIA 2002)                                   Interim Decision #3485




                             IV. BOARD DECISIONS
   In the past 12 years, we have issued a number of precedent decisions
interpreting the various notice provisions as they changed following new
legislation. In Matter of Munoz-Santos, 

 (BIA 1990), we
found that notice of the hearing was properly served by regular mail where the
regulation did not require any particular form of service and notice was sent
to the last known address provided by the unrepresented respondent. On the
other hand, in Matter of Peugnet, 

 (BIA 1991), we held that
a deportation hearing could not proceed in absentia where the Order to Show
Cause was sent to the alien’s address by regular mail, but the alien failed to
appear for the hearing or to acknowledge that she received the Order to Show
Cause, which was not re-served by personal service, as required by 

(c) (1990). 1 The regulations no longer require personal service if the
alien is served by regular mail and fails to appear.
   We subsequently determined that under section 242B(a)(1) of the Act
(effective on June 13, 1992), if personal service is not practicable, an Order
to Show Cause must be served by certified mail and the certified mail receipt
must be signed by the respondent or a responsible person at the respondent’s
address. Matter of Grijalva, supra (citing Matter of Huete, 

 (BIA 1991), for a similar requirement prior to the enactment of section
242B(a)(1)). With regard to the notice of hearing under section 242B(a)(2),
Matter of Grijalva found no requirement that the certified mail return receipt
be signed, so long as there was proof of attempted delivery. It also
established a presumption that the Postal Service has, in fact, attempted to
deliver certified mail, even in cases where the item is returned unclaimed.
Thus, in deportation proceedings under section 242B, attempted delivery by
certified mail is sufficient to meet the notice requirements of the Act. 

Furthermore, the presumption of effective service can only be overcome by
the affirmative defense of nondelivery or improper delivery by the Postal
Service if the respondent presents substantial and probative evidence
demonstrating that there was improper delivery. 

   In removal proceedings, we have held that an in absentia order may only
be entered where the alien has received, or can be charged with receiving, a
Notice to Appear informing him or her of the consequences of failing to
provide a current address under section 239(a)(1)(F) of the Act. Matter of

1 That decision also adopted, for purposes of deportation proceedings, a definition of personal
service that was applicable to proceedings before Service officers under 

.5a(a)(2)(iv) (1990), which included certified mail as a form of personal service. Matter
of Peugnet, supra, at 236. We have not adopted this definition for purposes of removal
proceedings.


                                             544
Cite as 

 (BIA 2002)                                 Interim Decision #3485



G-Y-R-, 

 (BIA 2001). In that case the issue turned on
whether the Notice to Appear, which was sent to the respondent by certified
mail and returned unclaimed, constituted constructive notice where the
address was obtained from an asylum application that was several years old.
We concluded that it was improper to rely on an old address obtained in
another proceeding, and that it was inappropriate to enter an in absentia order
of removal where the record reflected that the alien did not receive, or could
not be charged with receiving, the Notice to Appear.
   The issues and factual scenario in Matter of G-Y-R-, supra, and the present
case are not identical. Unlike the present case, Matter of G-Y-R- involved a
situation where there was a dispute over whether the notice had been mailed
to the correct address. Matter of G-Y-R-, however, is instructive for making
the point that the alien need not personally receive, read, and understand the
Notice to Appear for the notice requirements to be satisfied. As we noted in
Matter of G-Y-R-, supra, at 189,
  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 notice will have been effected.

                                   V. ANALYSIS
   The case before us is similar to Matter of G-Y-R-, supra, in that the
respondent was served by certified mail at an address obtained from an
asylum application. Importantly, however, there is no dispute here regarding
the correct address. The respondent had provided the address only a few
weeks before the hearing, and he admits that he was living at that address
when the Notice to Appear was mailed. Unlike our decision in Matter of
G-Y-R-, the issue in the present case is whether the respondent can be
charged with receiving the Notice to Appear.
   The respondent has not provided convincing arguments that service by
certified mail is a violation of due process. Certified mail was at one time
the required form of service by mail in immigration proceedings, and it is still
required for deportation proceedings. In addition, service by certified mail
is used in other federal administrative proceedings. Patmon and Young
Professional Corp. v. Commissioner, 

 (6th Cir. 1995) (involving
Internal Revenue Service proceedings). The Ninth Circuit has acknowledged
that certified mail sent to an alien’s last known address can be sufficient
notice of a hearing under section 242B of the Act if a responsible person
refuses to sign for the certified mail, or if the alien has changed address
without notice, as long as the alien is allowed to demonstrate nondelivery or
improper delivery in a motion to reopen. Arrieta v. INS, supra.

                                           545
Cite as 

 (BIA 2002)                        Interim Decision #3485



   The statute only generally provides for the use of “service by mail.”
Section 239(a)(1) of the Act. Although we interpret the revised statute to
allow service by regular mail, we do not read the regulation at 

 as conferring on an alien a right to require the use of regular mail
instead of certified mail. The regulation provides for the use of regular mail
as a convenience to the Service, not as a mandate to use regular mail instead
of certified mail. As in this case, the Service and the Immigration Courts
routinely use certified mail instead of regular mail in many instances,
although the degree of the use of certified mail varies from region to region.
We decline to hold that the use of certified mail in such instances is not
allowed by the language of 

 when the Act does not specify
one form of mailing over another.
   We disagree with the respondent’s assertion that use of regular mail is
more “reliable” and that his due process rights are better protected by the use
of regular mail. Thus, we find that no prejudice to the respondent ensued
from the use of certified mail in this case. The entire purpose behind the use
of certified mail is to ensure that there is proof of delivery to the intended
recipient, which is why it is often utilized for important documents. Indeed,
the use of certified mail in formal administrative proceedings is reflective of
the interests at stake and is more protective of due process. In removal
proceedings, the alien’s interests are paramount; removal proceedings present
an opportunity for the alien to contest removability and to apply for relief
from removal. Notice of such proceedings is therefore critical, and in some
instances certified mail may be the best way, other than personal service, to
ensure adequate notice. For us to now hold that regular mail is more reliable
than certified mail would be illogical and would undermine the importance of
adequate notice in removal proceedings. We are not persuaded that the
language of 

 compels a contrary finding.
   As a general matter, the law recognizes a presumption that “[a] letter
properly addressed, stamped and mailed is presumed to have been duly
delivered to the addressee.” Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Schaffer,

, 1137 n.6 (4th Cir. 1984) (quoting C. McCormick,
McCormick’s Handbook of the Law of Evidence § 343 (1972)). Moreover,
the presumption is especially strong when the delivery is by certified mail,
and clear and convincing evidence is required to overcome the presumption.
Id. at 1137 & n.6. Certified mail has always carried inherent reliability, and
its use by other Federal Government agencies has been upheld. See, e.g.,
Patmon and Young Professional Corp. v. 

 (upholding
notice by certified mail that was sent to the taxpayer’s last known address and
returned as “unclaimed” and “refused”); Eschweiler v. United States,

 (7th Cir. 1991) (holding that notice of tax deficiency sent by
certified mail to the taxpayer’s last known address was sufficient, even
though it was returned as “unclaimed”).

                                     546
Cite as 

 (BIA 2002)                        Interim Decision #3485



   The certified mail receipt sent to the respondent’s current address was not
signed and was returned to the Service. We must therefore determine the
effect of the return of the envelope marked “unclaimed,” which reflects the
respondent’s failure to collect the mail after the Post Office attempted to
notify him. The respondent does not claim that the notice was sent to the
wrong address, and its return as “unclaimed” indicates that the respondent did
not go to the Post Office to claim it. Proof that the notice was sent by
certified mail creates a rebuttable presumption of adequate notice, which an
alien may overcome through evidence that the Post Office had not attempted
delivery or had conducted delivery improperly. Fuentes-Argueta v. INS,

 (2d Cir. 1996); see also Arrieta v. INS, supra.
   The respondent has not rebutted this presumption. It is not reasonable to
allow the respondent to defeat service by neglecting or refusing to collect his
mail. As we noted in Matter of G-Y-R-, supra, at 189, if 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. That is what happened here. The
method of service was reasonably calculated to ensure that notice reached
the respondent, and the presumption of adequate notice has not been rebutted.
The respondent can therefore be charged with receipt of the Notice to
Appear.
                             VI. CONCLUSION
   We agree with the Immigration Judge’s finding that the respondent was
given proper notice of the removal hearing in accordance with section 239(a)
of the Act. Accordingly, the respondent’s appeal will be dismissed.
   ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.




                                     547