Kasyupa v. Keisler

4 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Munoz-Jurado

    CR. 11-50094-JLV (D.S.D. Feb. 27, 2012)

    (Docket 19 at pp. 5-6). The immigration court may only remove an alien in absentia if there is "clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence" the proper written notice of the hearing was given and the alien is removable. 8 U.S.C. ยง 1229a(b)(5)(A); see also Kasyupa v. Keisler, 252 Fed. Appx. 106, 108 (8th Cir. 2007) ("An [immigration judge] can order removal of an alien in absentia if the alien is shown to be removable by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence, the notice sent to the alien complied with the statutory requirements for notice, and the alien failed to appear."). Mr. Munoz-Jurado does not allege the immigration court erred in finding sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations in the notice to appear and to support removability.

  2. Acquaah v. Holder

    589 F.3d 332 (6th Cir. 2009)   Cited 24 times

    Unlike Kaweesa, there is no evidence that Acquaah tried to contact the court directly regarding the status of his case at any point during the two-and-one-half years following the missed hearing. See Kasyupa v. Keisler, 252 Fed.Appx. 106, 109 (8th Cir. 2007) (distinguishing Kaweesa because of the alien's "failure to remain active in the immigration proceedings," including his failure to remain in contact with his attorney or inquire of the court regarding the status of his 1-130 petition). Acquaah, unlike Kaweesa, had an attorney, but other than intermittently checking in with Klock, Acquaah was disengaged from his removal proceedings for the two-and-one-half years prior to his being taken into custody.

  3. Angaya v. Sessions

    No. 16-3552 (8th Cir. Jul. 21, 2017)

    We have previously noted that "[f]ailure to receive actual notice of [a removal] hearing is not an exceptional circumstance when . . . the only reason actual notice was not received was the alien's failure to update his address with his counsel, the immigration court, or DHS." Kasyupa v. Keisler, 252 F. App'x 106, 108 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Moreover, Angaya's counsel's withdrawal and his subsequent sending of the hearing notice to Angaya's previous address resulted from the fact that Angaya was uncooperative and uncommunicative over a period of months.

  4. Richardson v. Kerry

    CIVIL ACTION NO. H-14-0742 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 4, 2014)

    State Department guidelines require applicants to maintain an updated address with the Department. 9 FAM ยง 42.83 n.5, available at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/87925.pdf ("The applicant is responsible for providing the visa-issuing post with a current address. The applicant's failure to receive the notice of termination because he or she neglected to notify post of his or her change of address will not be considered as a reason 'beyond the applicant's control' for not pursuing the application."); see also, e.g., Singh v. Clinton, 618 F.3d 1085, 1093 (9th Cir. 2010) ("Third, because visa applicants are responsible for maintaining a current address with the State Department, sending notice to Sukhwinder's last known address would have made him plainly responsible for failing to apply after the government properly transmitted notice to his address in India."); see also Kasyupa v. Keisler, 252 F. App'x 106, 108 (8th Cir. 2007) (stating that alien who had an I-130 petition and did not update his address with the government or his attorney could not challenge an in abstentia removal hearing based on a claim that he failed to receive notice of the hearing). Moreover, immigration statutes require registered aliens to update the Attorney General with any address changes and makes it a misdemeanor to fail to do so.