More recently, however, the BIA has recognized that "reconsideration or reopening by the Immigration Judge" would likely also be appropriate where the noncitizen has satisfied the additional requirement of "provid[ing] good cause for missing the deadline." See Matter of R-C-R-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 74, 78-79 (BIA 2020).

A noncitizen "is entitled to a full and fair removal hearing under both the [INA] and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." Matter of R-C-R-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 74, 77 (B.I.A. 2020). Under the Fifth Amendment, a noncitizen is "entitle[d] . . . to due process of law in deportation proceedings," Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306, 113 S.Ct. 1439, 123 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993), which includes the right to a full and fair hearing, Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32-33, 103 S.Ct. 321, 74 L.Ed.2d 21 (1982)

. The parties cite Matter of R-C-R-, 28 I. &N. Dec. 74 (B.I.A. 2020), for the proposition that an IJ must provide explicit instructions about the filing deadline before deeming an application abandoned. Although R-C-R- did not involve an allegedly ambiguous deadline, it does contain language that could be read to require explicit instructions about the deadline.

Moreover, the BIA has decided that no constitutional due process issue arises from using a video link to facilitate his participation. Matter of R-C-R, 28 I.&N. Dec. 74 (BIA 2020)(three-Member decision)

Concerns with the IJ's unclear language become more apparent when contrasted with the language used by the IJ in Matter of R-C-R-, 28 I & N Dec. 74, 76 n.4 (BIA 2020), in which the BIA found that the IJ's rejection of a late-filed application did not violate due process. There, the IJ said:

Laborin-Ledes's contention that the IJ erred in admitting into evidence untimely submissions from the Department of Homeland Security fails because the IJ has wide latitude to control filing deadlines for the admission of evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c) (2019) ("The Immigration Judge may set and extend time limits for the filing of applications and related documents and responses thereto, if any."); see also Matter of R-C-R-, 28 I. &N. Dec. 74, 83 (BIA 2020) ("After an Immigration Judge has set a firm deadline for filing an application for relief, the respondent's opportunity to file the application may be deemed waived . . . if the deadline passes without submission of the application and no good cause for noncompliance has been shown." (emphasis added)).

Venue is proper "where the administrative hearings were completed." Llapa-Sinchi v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 897, 901 (8th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted); see Matter of R-C-R-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 74, 74 n.1 (B.I.A. 2020). Thus, Minnesota appears to be the proper venue.

In a highly analogous case, the BIA held that an immigration judge conducting a remote removal hearing from the administrative control court in Batavia, New York "completed" removal proceedings from Louisiana, "where the respondent was located and the hearing was docketed." Matter of R-C-R , 28 I. & N. Dec. 74, 74 n.1 (B.I.A. 2020).

Consistent with OPPM 04-06, the BIA has held that "[t]he circuit law applied to proceedings conducted via video conference is the law governing the docketed hearing location, as opposed to the location of the administrative control court." Matter of R-C-R-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 74, 74 n.1 (B.I.A. 2020). We have not applied OPPM No. 04-06 in a published decision to determine proper venue in the court of appeals.

Acosta-Torres contends that the Board incorrectly assumed that the IJ was required to deem Acosta-Torres's application for relief to be abandoned because she did not meet the filing deadline. See Matter of R-C-R-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 74, 83 (B.I.A. 2020) ("After an Immigration Judge has set a firm deadline for filing an application for relief, the respondent's opportunity to file the application may be deemed waived . . . if the deadline passes without submission of the application and no good cause for noncompliance has been shown.") (emphasis added). Even so, a motion to reopen before the immigration court for the purpose of submitting an application for relief must be accompanied by that application and all supporting documents.