Urquia-Yanez v. Blanche

── Urquia-Yanez v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 08, 2026 Category: General FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WENDY MARIELA URQUIA- No. 25-1136 YANEZ, AKA Wuendi Mariela Agency No. Urquia Yanes, A205-382-847 Petitioner, OPINION v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted December 1, 2025 San Francisco, California Filed May 8, 2026 Before: Ryan D. Nelson, Daniel P. Collins, and Lawrence VanDyke, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge VanDyke 2 URQUIA-YANEZ V. BLANCHE SUMMARY* Immigration Denying Wendy Marie Urquia-Yanez’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the panel held that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is not constitutionally required to translate the entirety of a Notice to Appear—including aliens’ obligation to provide changes of address to the immigration court—to aliens in their native language. Urquia-Yanez argued that the BIA abused its discretion in upholding the immigration judge’s denial of her motion to reopen because she was not afforded proper notice of the removal hearing at which she was ordered removed in absentia. However, an alien may not rely on lack of notice if the alien did not provide his or her current address to the government after being notified of the obligation to do so. Here, DHS served Urquia-Yanez with a Notice to Appear, in English, which explained her obligation to update her address if she moved. Urquia-Yanez failed to provide the immigration court with an updated address after moving, and the immigration court thus mailed a Notice of Hearing to her old address. When Urquia-Yanez failed to appear at that hearing, she was ordered removed in absentia. The panel rejected Urquia-Yanez’s argument that because her obligation to update addresses was not explained to her in her native language of Spanish, the later-provided Notice of Hearing was constitutionally insufficient. The * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.  URQUIA-YANEZ V. BLANCHE 3 panel wrote that the circuit’s immigration precedent already recognizes that English-language notices of an alien’s obligations generally are reasonably calculated to reach and to inform aliens of their obligations, and thus sufficient to satisfy the demands of due process. The panel held that such a standard likewise applies to an English-language-only written notice of an alien’s obligation to update her address with the immigration court after moving. COUNSEL George Rios (argued), Cook & Olson, Fresno, California, for Petitioner. Andrew J. Oliveira (argued), Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division; Justin Markel, Senior Litigation Counsel; Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General; United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Respondent. OPINION VANDYKE, Circuit Judge: Petitioner Wendy Marie Urquia-Yanez (“Urquia- Yanez”) challenges an in absentia removal order entered after she failed to appear at her removal hearing. The undisputed record shows that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) served Urquia-Yanez with a Notice to Appear that listed the address she had provided to DHS and 4 URQUIA-YANEZ V. BLANCHE that explained her obligation to update her address if she moved, that the immigration court subsequently mailed a Notice of Hearing to the address that Urquia-Yanez had provided, and that Urquia-Yanez failed to provide the immigration court with an updated address after