The Board of Immigration Appeals ruled on October 22 that an immigration court need not undertake an independent search for a respondent when a hearing notice sent to the only address in the case record is returned as undeliverable. In Matter of Chamorro Castillo, 30 I&N Dec. 170 (BIA 2026), the Board upheld a removal order entered after the respondent missed his hearing. The ruling is a published precedent, but it does not mean every returned notice automatically establishes adequate notice.
What happened in this case?
After his release from immigration detention in 2019, the respondent provided DHS with a mailing address in Washington state. DHS supplied that address to the Immigration Court using Form I-830. The court mailed a hearing notice to that address in September 2019, but the Postal Service returned it marked undeliverable. The respondent did not attend the January 2020 hearing, and an immigration judge ordered him removed in absentia — without his presence.
The respondent asked the court to reopen the case, saying he had not received the notice. A postal employee's letter explained that his mailbox had become full, his mail was held at the post office and later returned. The immigration judge denied reopening, and the BIA affirmed in 2020.
The Ninth Circuit subsequently sent the case back for the BIA to assess whether the government had reasonably available additional ways to notify the respondent after learning the mailing failed. The Board issued its new decision on October 22, 2026.
What did the BIA decide?
The Board concluded that the notice had been mailed to the respondent's correct address and the only address available in the immigration court's record. In those circumstances, it said, neither the Immigration Court nor the BIA had a reasonably available or practicable additional step to effect notice.
The Board specifically rejected the idea that an immigration judge generally must telephone a respondent using a number listed on Form I-830. It cited the courts' heavy caseloads, their role as neutral adjudicators and concerns about improper communications or disclosure of confidential information. The Board also explained that immigration courts do not have access to DHS's complete A-files and are not equipped to investigate people's whereabouts.
The BIA therefore dismissed the respondent's appeal and left the in absentia removal order in place.
Does the decision eliminate the right to notice?
No. The Board acknowledged the Ninth Circuit's rule that due process requires notice reasonably calculated to inform a person of removal proceedings. When the government learns that notice failed, additional reasonable steps may be required if practicable. The dispute in this case was whether the immigration court itself had any such steps available.
The distinction matters. The Board emphasized that this notice was mailed to the correct address and that no alternative address appeared in the court record. It distinguished earlier cases in which a notice had been sent to an incorrect address or one supplied by someone other than the respondent. The ruling should not be read as deciding cases with different address records or other feasible methods of notice.
What does this mean for people in immigration proceedings?
A missed hearing can lead to a removal order without the person's participation. This decision reinforces the practical importance of ensuring that the Immigration Court or BIA, as applicable, has an accurate mailing address and receives any required address-change filing.
The BIA identified Form EOIR-33 as the mechanism for reporting address changes to the immigration court or Board. Updating an address with another agency alone should not be assumed to update the court's record. Anyone who learns of a missed hearing or a removal order should seek prompt individualized legal advice about the applicable procedures and deadlines. Whether a particular order can be reopened depends on the facts and law governing that case.
Legal status: Published BIA precedent decided October 22, 2026; not a proposed rule or a new USCIS policy. The ruling may be subject to further judicial review.