Subsequent Hearing Notices as “New” Notices of Hearing under INA §239(a): Clarifying In Absentia Removal Notice Requirements

Introduction

Merlyn Judith Munguia-Ramos v. U.S. Attorney General (11th Cir. 2025) addresses when a noncitizen who receives an initial Notice to Appear (“NTA”) without a date or time can be bound by a later-sent notice specifying those details. Petitioner Munguia-Ramos, ordered removed in absentia after she failed to appear, challenged both the underlying order and the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of her motions to reopen and to reconsider. She argued that neither her initial NTA (lacking time and place) nor the subsequent notice cured the defect, and that she never received either. The government contended that the second notice—properly mailed—qualified as a “notice of change” under INA §239(a)(2) and thus satisfied due‐process requirements for in‐absentia removal.

Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit denied Munguia-Ramos’s petition for review. It held that:

The later-sent hearing notice specifying time and place constituted a “new” notice under INA §239(a)(2).
The government met its burden of proving effective service by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence because it mailed the notice to the most recent address provided, and it was not returned undeliverable.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying motions to reopen (untimeliness) and to reconsider (lack of clear error), nor did it misapply binding precedent.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Pereira v. Sessions (585 U.S. 198, 2018): An NTA lacking time and place is not one “under §1229(a),” so it does not trigger the stop‐time rule for cancellation of removal.
Niz-Chavez v. Garland (593 U.S. 155, 2021): A valid NTA must be a single document containing all required information; subsequent mailings cannot patch an otherwise defective NTA.
Campos-Chaves v. Garland (602 U.S. 447, 2024): A later‐sent notice that provides the first information of time/place and consequences of nonappearance qualifies as a “new” notice for in‐absentia removal rescission under INA §240(b)(5).
Dragomirescu v. U.S. Atty Gen. (44 F.4th 1351, 11th Cir. 2022): Established the presumption of effective mailing, rebuttable by evidence such as affidavits or proof of diligence, in in‐absentia removal proceedings.

Legal Reasoning

The Eleventh Circuit applied a two-step inquiry:

Does the second mailing qualify as a “notice of change” under INA §239(a)(2)?
- The court held that, per Campos-Chaves, when an initial NTA omits time/place, a subsequent notice setting them is indeed a §239(a)(2) notice rather than mere correspondence.
Did the government establish effective service by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence so as to sustain an in-absentia removal order?
- Relying on Dragomirescu, the court invoked the presumption that a properly addressed, prepaid, first‐class mail sent to the noncitizen’s last known address was received absent an unambiguous rebuttal or returned‐undeliverable slip.

Because Munguia-Ramos neither produced a returned envelope nor offered affidavits or other contemporaneous evidence of non‐receipt, the BIA reasonably credited the presumption of delivery. The panel thus concluded no abuse of discretion.

Impact

This decision cements the principle that in removal proceedings:

Defective NTAs (without time/place) do not shield respondents from an in-absentia order if they later receive a proper §239(a)(2) notice.
The government’s mailing procedures enjoy a strong presumption of receipt, placing the burden on respondents to present contemporaneous evidence of non‐receipt.

Future noncitizens seeking relief from in-absentia orders will need to counter the mail‐service presumption with clear documentary or testimonial proof of non‐receipt or establish that the government failed to mail to the correct address.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Notice to Appear (NTA): The charging document in removal proceedings. Under INA §239(a)(1), it must include issues, charges, time, place, and consequences of nonappearance.
Notice of Change (INA §239(a)(2)): A follow-up notice used to update the time or place; must state new details and warn of the consequences of failing to appear.
In Absentia Removal Order: A removal order entered when an alien fails to appear at a hearing after proper written notice; rescindable only if the alien demonstrates non‐receipt.
Presumption of Service by Mail: If a document is properly addressed, prepaid, and mailed to the alien’s last known address, the government is presumed to have provided notice, unless the alien rebuts that presumption with evidence.
Abrasion of Discretion vs. De Novo Review: The BIA’s application of law to undisputed facts is reviewed deferentially (for abuse of discretion), but pure legal questions are reviewed de novo.

Conclusion

Merlyn Munguia-Ramos v. U.S. Attorney General confirms that when an initial NTA omits hearing details, a subsequent hearing notice constitutes a “new” notice under INA §239(a)(2). The government’s adherence to standard mailing procedures triggers a strong presumption of receipt, requiring respondents to provide contemporaneous proof of non‐receipt. This precedent sharpens the framework for challenging in-absentia removal orders and underscores the critical importance for noncitizens to monitor mailings and maintain accurate address records.