Case Explained: CRUZ RODRIGUEZ V. BLANCHE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-07-01 The Ninth Circuit denied Lorenzo Cruz-Rodriguez’s petition for review seeking rescission of an *in absentia* removal order based on a defective Notice to Appear. The court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen proceedings. Applying the standard established in *Campos-Chaves v. Garland*, 602 U.S. 447 (2024), the court ruled that a noncitizen is not eligible for rescission under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii) solely because an initial Notice to Appear lacked specific date and time information, provided the government subsequently issued a written notice containing the correct time, place, and consequences of failure to appear. The court found that the agency sent such a subsequent notice and rejected the petitioner’s due process argument regarding the timing of that notice, citing *Campos-Chaves* as controlling authority. Although the opinion noted a clerical error by the government in mailing the subsequent notice to an incorrect address (a transposition of digits), it declined to rule on whether this mistake rendered the notice insufficient because the petitioner’s counsel had conceded the notice was sent to the address provided by the petitioner, and the court emphasized the government’s obligation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 to present facts accurately. The petition is denied, though a temporary stay of removal remains in effect until the mandate issues. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.