Instead, a person can only show that he did not receive notice "so long as he complied with the statute's address requirements." Renaut, 791 F.3d at 167 ; see also Shia v. Holder, 561 F.3d 19, 20–21 (1st Cir. 2009) (per curiam); Shah v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 25, 28 (1st Cir. 2008). Machado has not shown or even argued that he complied with those requirements -- that is, he did not provide "a written record of any change of [his] address or telephone number."
This case is thus distinguishable from the cases the government relied on in its brief, where the petitioners did not receive their notices, which were sent to their last-known addresses, because they failed to update their addresses. Shia v. Holder, 561 F.3d 19, 20–21 (1st Cir.2009) ( per curiam ); Shah v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 25, 28 (1st Cir.2008). As we have discussed, the IJ and BIA made no such finding in the instant case.