CA9 on In Absentia Orders: Singh v. Garland

Singh v. Garland

"Petitioner Varinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks rescission of a removal order entered in absentia. We previously granted Singh’s petition because the government did not provide Singh with a Notice to Appear (NTA) setting forth the time and date of removal proceedings in compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1), but the Supreme Court rejected our interpretation of this statutory provision. Campos-Chaves v. Garland, 144 S. Ct. 1637, 1649 (2024). The Supreme Court vacated our prior judgment and remanded for us to address Singh’s alternative argument that his in absentia removal order is subject to rescission because of “exceptional circumstances” under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i). Id. at 1651 & n.2. Because the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) did not consider the totality of the circumstances presented in the record, we conclude that the BIA should more fully address whether exceptional circumstances warranted rescission of the in absentia removal order. We grant Singh’s petition, vacate the order denying Singh’s motion to reopen his proceedings, and remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

[Hats off to Saad Ahmad!]