UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EVA ANGELINA JIMENEZ- No. 19-73193 SANDOVAL, Petitioner, Agency No. A072-991-558 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney OPINION General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 2, 2021* San Francisco, California

Filed January 13, 2022

Before: Johnnie B. Rawlinson and Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judges, and Kathleen Cardone,** District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Rawlinson

* The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). ** The Honorable Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation. 2 JIMENEZ-SANDOVAL V. GARLAND

SUMMARY***

Immigration

Denying Eva Jimenez-Sandoval’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals that denied her motion to reopen an in absentia deportation order, the panel rejected Jimenez-Sandoval’s contention that, because she was actually a minor when she was released on her own recognizance without notice of her hearing to a reasonable adult, the notice provided her was inadequate.

When Jimenez-Sandoval was apprehended upon entry into the United States, an immigration officer interviewed her and prepared a Form I-213 (“Record of Deportable Alien”), which indicated that Jimenez-Sandoval was 20 years old. Immigration officers released her on her own recognizance and served her with an Order to Show Cause (OSC) and a Notice of Hearing. After Jimenez-Sandoval failed to appear at her hearing, she was ordered deported in absentia. Almost twenty years later, Jimenez-Sandoval filed a motion to reopen, seeking to set aside the order on the basis that the agency did not comply with the notice requirements for minors. Jimenez-Sandoval provided a copy of her birth certificate, which indicated that she was 17 years old when apprehended. The immigration judge denied her motion, and the BIA dismissed her appeal.

The panel discussed Flores-Chavez v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2004), in which a detained fifteen-year-old

*** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. JIMENEZ-SANDOVAL V. GARLAND 3 immigrant was released from custody to an adult relative, and the OSC was served only on the minor, not the adult. The court found notice insufficient, concluding that the only reasonable construction of the statute and governing regulations requires notice to both the minor and the adult to whom the minor is released. The panel found Jimenez- Sandoval’s case readily distinguishable from Flores-Chavez, explaining that Jimenez-Sandoval was released on her own recognizance presumably based on the immigration officers’ belief that she was not a minor. Because there was no adult present to assume responsibility for ensuring Jimenez- Sandoval’s appearance at future proceedings, the panel concluded that the requirement of notice to an adult was not triggered.

The panel further explained that this case more closely resembled Cruz Pleitez v. Barr, 938 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2019), in which the court declined to extend the holding in Flores-Chavez to encompass service on a minor over age fourteen who had not been placed in detention. The panel explained that here, as in Cruz Pleitez, no adult ever entered an agreement with the government to assume responsibility for petitioner. Accordingly, there was no reason to believe that serving the OSC on an a