Matter of Elmer Omar LOPEZ-ORELLANA (agency decision, March 27, 2026)

Plain-English summary

The respondent's original notice to appear did not state the date or time of the initial removal hearing, and he did not attend two scheduled master calendar hearings. The Immigration Judge terminated the proceedings because the notice was noncompliant. The Board held that the respondent had forfeited any objection by not timely raising it, and that a later hearing notice can provide adequate notice for an in absentia proceeding. It vacated the termination order and remanded for further proceedings, including an in absentia hearing if the respondent again fails to appear.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229 and 1229a
• Outcome: The termination order was vacated, and the record was remanded for further proceedings and a new decision.
• Key point: A noncompliant notice to appear does not by itself require termination when the respondent received adequate notice of the missed hearing and did not timely object.

Full text (BIA official public release)

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 2026)

Interim Decision #4177

Matter of Elmer Omar LOPEZ-ORELLANA, Respondent Decided March 27, 2026 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals (1) An objection to the noncompliant notice to appear is the respondent’s, not the Immigration Judge’s, objection to raise and is forfeited if not timely raised. (2) If the Immigration Judge is satisfied that the respondent, who has not appeared at a scheduled hearing, is removable as charged and received adequate notice of his missed hearing despite the noncompliant notice to appear, the Immigration Judge should proceed in absentia rather than terminate proceedings. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Pro se FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Andrew Stawar, Assistant Chief Counsel BEFORE: Board Panel: MONTANTE, OWEN, and GALLOW, Appellate Immigration Judges. OWEN, Appellate Immigration Judge:

In a decision dated November 9, 2022, the Immigration Judge terminated removal proceedings without prejudice based on a noncompliant notice to appear. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) appeals from that decision. The proceedings will be reinstated, and the record will be remanded. The respondent was issued a notice to appear on March 2, 2020, which did not include the date or time of the initial removal hearing. Subsequent hearing notices scheduled the respondent’s initial hearing for August 10, 2022. The respondent failed to appear for his initial master calendar hearing on that day, and the matter was reset to November 9, 2022. On November 9, 2022, DHS filed a Form I-261, Additional Charges of Inadmissibility/Deportability, adding as a factual allegation the original date, time, and location of the respondent’s initial master calendar hearing prior to its rescheduling. On the same day, the respondent again failed to appear for the master calendar hearing. The Immigration Judge determined that the notice to appear was noncompliant under Matter of Fernandes, 28 I&N Dec. 605 (BIA 2022), page

533

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 2026)

Interim Decision #4177

rejected the filing of a Form I-261 as a remedy, and terminated proceedings without prejudice. 1 DHS appealed that decision, arguing before the Board that the Immigration Judge should have permitted a remedy to the defective notice to appear other than termination. An objection to the noncompliant notice to appear is the respondent’s, not the Immigration Judge’s, objection to raise and is forfeited if not timely raised. Matter of Fernandes, 28 I&N Dec. at 609. Here, the respondent, having not appeared at any of his master calendar hearings, did not object to the noncompliant notice to appear. Subsequent to the Immigration Judge’s decision in this case, the Supreme Court of the United States held that an in absentia removal order can be issued despite a noncompliant notice to appear as long as the alien received notice of the missed hearing through a notice of hearing issued under section 239(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229(a)(2)(A) (2024). See Campos-Chaves v. Garland, 602 U.S. 447, 458–59 (2024). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in which jurisdiction this case arises, has recognized that under Campos-Chavez, a notice of hearing containing the time and place of the missed hearing provides the notice required for an in absentia removal order under section 240(b)(5)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A) (2024). Luna v. Garland, 123 F.4th 775, 779 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 146 S. Ct. 91 (2025). Thus, if the Immigration Judge is satisfied that the respondent, who has not appeared at a scheduled hearing, is removable as charged and received adequate notice of his missed hearing despite the noncompliant notice to appear, the Immigration Judge should proceed in absentia rather than terminate proceedings. See INA § 240(b)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(b)(5)(A); cf. Matter of Sanchez-Herbert, 26 I&N Dec. 43, 44–45 (BIA 2012) (holding that an in absentia hearing, rather than termination, is appropriate when an alien fails to appear because they have departed from the United States). Accordingly, termination of the respondent’s removal proceedings was not appropriate. We will therefore sustain DHS’ appeal, vacate the Immigration Judge’s decision, and remand the record to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings. If the respondent again fails to appear, the Immigration Judge should proceed in absentia and determine if the

The Immigration Judge’s decision is embedded in the transcript. We remind the Immigration Judge that an oral decision should be clearly defined from the rest of the proceedings. See Matter of A-P-, 22 I&N Dec. 468, 477 (BIA 1999).

1

page

534

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 2026)

Interim Decision #4177

respondent is removable as charged and if an in absentia removal order is warranted under section 240(b)(5)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A).

ORDER: The appeal is sustained, and the Immigration Judge’s November 9, 2022, decision is vacated. FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration

Judge for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing decision and for the entry of a new decision.

page

535