Saeteros-Torres (not precedential): Hard To Prove Didn't Receive Court Notice If No Relief Available

In Saeteros-Torres v. Mukasey, No. 07-1294 (3d Cir. Jan. 29, 2008) (not precedential), the Third Circuit revisited how failure to receive notice of a court hearing is something you can argue and try to convince the immigration judge. If the court did not mail its notice to you by certified mail but instead only by regular mail, then there is a presumption of receipt that you can overcome with corroborating circumstantial evidence.

Here, the Third Circuit said the circumstantial evidence was not so obviously enough that it could overturn the BIA's refusal to reopen the case. Strangely, it seems the Third Circuit said that the person did not have a way to avoid deportation such as being eligible for a green card under the Cuban Adjustment Act, so it was not so clear that the person did not receive the notice.

This is a bit controversial because the person was arguing about a type of relief that would have been possible -- asking for and getting voluntary departure. Seems the Third Circuit does not see voluntary departure (a way to avoid a deportation order) as compelling enough a motive to attend a court hearing so that it seems clear the person did not receive the notice. Maybe tips for the future are to include personality tests that show the person has a high level of obeying rules and complying with authority -- to offer more circumstantial evidence of not wanting to avoid a court date?