Returned Hearing Notices and In Absentia Removal: Chamorro Castillo Explained
A returned hearing notice does not end the constitutional inquiry—and it does not automatically invalidate an in absentia removal order. In this October 22, 2026 precedent decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals considered what an immigration court must do after learning that its mailed notice failed. Applying the Ninth Circuit’s framework on remand, the Board concluded that no further reasonable, practicable notification step was available on this record. It dismissed the appeal.
Read the official decision: Matter of Chamorro Castillo, 30 I&N Dec. 170 (BIA 2026).
A correct address, an overflowing mailbox, and a missed hearing
DHS initiated proceedings in February 2019 and supplied the court with the respondent’s post-release address and telephone number. The court mailed a hearing notice to that address in September. The notice was returned, and the respondent missed his January 8, 2020 hearing. The immigration judge ordered removal in absentia. His March 2020 reopening motion confirmed that the address was correct. A postal employee’s explanation attributed the delivery failure to a full mailbox; the mail was held for ten days and returned unclaimed. See pages 170–171.
Statutory mailing and due process are separate questions
Following a Ninth Circuit remand, the Board rejected the premise that statutory compliance alone resolved the constitutional issue. Under the framework discussed at pages 171–172, knowledge that notice failed requires consideration of additional reasonable steps when practicable. The decision therefore did not rest simply on proof that an envelope had been mailed.
The decisive limitation was factual: the court had used the sole address in its record, and the respondent agreed that it was correct. The Board distinguished cases involving an incomplete address or the failure to use an address supplied by the respondent. Those differences can affect whether an available alternative was overlooked. See page 175, footnote 3.
Why the telephone number did not change the result
At pages 173–176, the Board emphasized EOIR’s adjudicatory role, staffing constraints, and lack of investigative facilities. It considered a general obligation to telephone respondents impracticable, citing identity verification, confidentiality, and improper one-sided communications. EOIR also lacked direct access to DHS’s complete A-file. The Board noted that DHS should report different addresses it learns of; it did not find another usable address in this case.
What the ruling leaves open
This is a precedent about the adequacy of notice on a particular record, within an expressly discussed circuit-law framework. It does not establish that every returned notice is sufficient or that every assertion of nonreceipt justifies reopening. Nor did the Board decide eligibility for other immigration relief; that issue lay outside the remand’s scope. See page 176, footnote 5.
An exceptional-circumstances motion and a motion alleging lack of legally sufficient notice follow different statutory routes under INA § 240(b)(5)(C), including different timing rules. A case assessment must identify the applicable route before drawing conclusions from this decision.
Records that can make the difference
The useful evidence includes the court’s address history, address-change filings and delivery receipts, the original envelope and return markings, postal records, and a dated account of when the person learned of the order. A correct address must also remain capable of receiving mail. Counsel should compare those records with the complete court file and governing circuit law before deciding whether and how to seek rescission.
Legal Disclaimer. Originally published: 11/01/2026. This article provides general information only and is not legal advice for any particular matter. Laws, policies, procedures, fees and agency practices may change; their application depends on the facts and jurisdiction. Consult a qualified attorney about your circumstances before acting on this information. Reading this article or contacting Blumsack & Canzano does not, by itself, create an attorney-client relationship. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.
