Matter of Chamorro Castillo: When the Notice Comes Back Undeliverable, the Court Is Done Trying

Last month, in Matter of Diji, the Board held that the government may mail a charging document to the most recent address a person gave it, even one given before the notice to appear existed. This decision answers the next question: what happens when the mail comes back.

The case

A notice to appear was filed in February 2019; four days later DHS filed a Form I-830 giving the court a Richland, Washington address and a phone number the respondent had reported to DHS. The hearing notice mailed to that address in September 2019 came back marked “NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD.” An in absentia removal order followed in January 2020. The respondent moved to reopen; the judge denied the motion and the Board affirmed in 2020.

The Ninth Circuit sent the case back to consider its 2025 decision in United States v. Rivera-Valdes, which held that when the government knows notice failed, it may have to take further reasonably available steps. The Board, on remand, accepted that Rivera-Valdes applies to civil removal proceedings — rejecting DHS’s argument that it does not — but held that there was nothing further to do. An immigration court, the Board reasoned, is a quasi-judicial body without investigative resources, constrained by confidentiality rules and the bar on ex parte contact; the address used was the correct one the respondent supplied; and phoning the number on file was not required.

Read with Diji

The two decisions together describe a closed loop. Under Diji, the most recent address given to the government is the address, even if given before the case began. Under Chamorro Castillo, if mail to that address is returned and it is the only address in the record, the court’s obligation is satisfied. The in absentia order that results is valid, and the person must then meet the standards for reopening — which, after Matter of J-E-D-C-, do not require the judge to take the person’s sworn account as true.

The Board distinguished Rivera-Valdes and the Ninth Circuit’s September decision in Meza Medina v. Blanche on their facts: those involved wrong or third-party addresses, not a correct address at which the mail went unclaimed. Whether the Ninth Circuit accepts that distinction is the next step in this case. For everyone else the lesson is the one we gave in September, now with less room around it: keep the address current with every agency, in writing, every time.

This article is general legal information about a recent precedent decision, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Whether notice was adequate in a particular case depends on its record and the law of the governing circuit. Consult a qualified immigration attorney. This website is attorney advertising.