Cubans with open cases before U.S. immigration courts face a new legal warning: not receiving a court summons does not always prevent a judge from ordering their deportation for missing a hearing.
A recent decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) establishes that, under certain circumstances, courts are not required to take additional steps to locate the immigrant, even when the notification sent by mail has been returned.
The criterion appears in the precedent decision Matter of Chamorro Castillo, 30 I&N Dec. 170 (BIA 2026), issued last Thursday by the BIA, part of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) of the Department of Justice.
The resolution, identified as Interim Decision #4262, was drafted by Chief Appeals Judge Malphrus, with participation from Judges Creppy and Chaban.
The BIA concluded that when a court sends a hearing notice to the only address provided by the immigrant and recorded in the file, but the correspondence is returned as undeliverable, the court does not necessarily have to seek another way to communicate with that person.
This may include situations where the court is aware that the letter was returned, but does not have another valid address in the court record.
For immigrants with open deportation proceedings, including Cubans, the consequences can be particularly severe: if they do not appear at the hearing and the legal requirements are met, the judge can order their expulsion from the country in their absence.
This is an order of deportation in absentia, known in Spanish as in absentia removal order.
The new interpretation is particularly important for those who change their residence during their immigration procedures, temporarily live with relatives, or use an address where they cannot regularly receive correspondence.
However, the precedent does not mean that any lost notification is legally sufficient.
The BIA examined specific circumstances, particularly that the notice had been sent to the correct address and that there was no other address in the record that the court was required to use.
The case began in 2019, when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated deportation proceedings against an immigrant whose nationality is not specified in the resolution.
After his release from immigration detention, the authorities informed the court of the address that the foreign national had provided. The document also included a phone number.
On September 9, 2019, the court mailed a notification for a hearing scheduled for January 8, 2020.
The correspondence never reached the recipient. According to a subsequent statement from a postal employee, the immigrant's mailbox was full, so the mail was moved to the post office, where it remained held for 10 days.
Since no one collected the letter, it was returned to the sender.
The immigrant did not attend the hearing, and the judge ordered his deportation in absentia.
Later, he requested the reopening of the procedure, claiming that he had never received the notification. To support his explanation, he submitted documentation regarding what happened with the correspondence.
The file itself, however, confirmed that the address used by the court was correct.
The judge rejected the request for reopening in April 2020, and the BIA initially upheld that decision in October of the same year.
After new judicial proceedings, the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals returned the matter to the Board to examine whether there were other reasonable measures that the court could have taken upon learning that the notification had not been received.
In its new ruling from October 2026, the BIA once again denied the immigrant's appeal and upheld the conclusion that the notification had been legally sufficient.
The central argument is that immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals perform judicial decision-making functions, not investigative duties to locate individuals involved in immigration proceedings.
According to the BIA, the courts do not have the resources or the personnel necessary to independently investigate where each immigrant resides when a letter is returned.
He also stated that taking on such tasks could conflict with the impartiality that courts are supposed to uphold, as it brings them closer to investigative functions that are the responsibility of the authorities responsible for enforcing immigration laws.
The decision clarifies that a court is not generally obligated to call the phone number included in the case file, conduct internet searches, or investigate other possible addresses to ensure the delivery of a summons.
It is not required to independently review all the addresses that may appear in the administrative file maintained by DHS, known as A-file, to which immigration judges and the BIA do not necessarily have access.
The resolution acknowledges, however, that the DHS may inform the court if it is aware of an address different from the one recorded in the proceedings.
The precedent also addresses two decisions from the Ninth Circuit: United States v. Rivera-Valdes, from 2025, and Meza Medina v. Blanche, from September 2026.
In these matters, federal justice examined the government's obligation to take additional reasonable measures when it is aware that a notification has failed and there are practical alternatives for communicating it.
The BIA acknowledged that this principle can apply to civil deportation proceedings, but differentiated the current case because the citation had been sent to the correct address provided by the immigrant himself.
Therefore, he concluded that the circumstances examined did not require further action from the court.
The decision sets a precedent for immigration judges and the Board of Appeals itself, although its application must respect the binding decisions of the relevant federal courts.
For Cubans with pending cases in Florida, where the decisions of the Eleventh Circuit are particularly relevant, the precedent reinforces the importance of keeping the address on the court record updated.
This obligation does not depend on whether the person has an I-220A form, has previously received a temporary stay permit (parole), or is applying for asylum. What matters is that they have a court procedure underway and must receive their notifications.
The I-220A form, by itself, does not demonstrate that a person has a scheduled hearing nor does it automatically determine their status before the court.
For those who have an open judicial process, the warning is clear: updating the address with another immigration agency does not necessarily mean that the immigration court has received that change.
The EOIR requires that changes of address or contact information be communicated using the appropriate form within five business days following the change.
If the procedure is pending before an immigration judge, the EOIR-33/IC form, available in Spanish should be used.
When the case is under appeal before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the EOIR-33/BIA form is required.
Changes may be submitted through the means authorized by the EOIR, including online-enabled systems, personal delivery, or mail, according to the applicable instructions.
The court expressly warns that it does not automatically change the address simply because a new address appears in other documents, requests, or communications. It is necessary to formally submit a notice of change of address.
The obligation to notify changes of address during immigration processes also applies to other agencies, although each has its own procedures.
In the case of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), individuals subject to the general requirement to report changes of address must typically do so within 10 days, using the appropriate address change procedure, including Form AR-11.
Those who are subject to supervision or controls by ICE must also keep their information updated with that agency, following the instructions of their deportation office.
The I-830 form, mentioned above, is used by immigration authorities to communicate address information to the EOIR. It does not replace the EOIR-33 form that the immigrant must submit when applicable.
ICE provides a guide in Spanish on how to update your address with ICE and the immigration court, reminding that keeping both records up to date is essential to avoid missing appointments or hearings.
In addition, anyone with a migration procedure can consult the information available about their case in the Automated Information System for EOIR Cases.
You can also call 1-800-898-7180, an automated line that allows you to consult basic information about procedures in immigration courts.
To use these services, you generally need the foreigner registration number, known as the A number (Alien Registration Number).
The EOIR warns that the automated system does not necessarily display all procedures or all available information. Official notifications and resolutions issued by the court remain the determining documents.
For that reason, in addition to periodically checking the status of the case, it is important to maintain an accessible mailbox, review the correspondence, keep receipts of address changes, and inform the legal representative of any delivery issues.
If there is already a deportation order in absentia, the new precedent does not eliminate all possibilities of requesting its reopening.
U.S. legislation provides mechanisms to request the annulment of an order issued due to failure to appear, including certain situations in which there was insufficient legal notification.
The request to reopen an order of deportation in absentia depends on the alleged cause, the available evidence, and the deadlines set by law.
When it is claimed that the legally required notification was not received, the request may be submitted under a different rule than that applicable to those justifying their absence due to exceptional circumstances, which is typically subject to a 180-day deadline.
In both scenarios, it is necessary to examine the specific case file. A notification sent to an incorrect address, a failure to update attributable to the agency, or issues different from those resolved in the new precedent may require a different legal analysis.
On October 20, just two days before this resolution, the BIA had already established another precedent regarding reopening requests in the case Matter of J-E-D-C-.
In that decision, the Board clarified that judges are not required to automatically accept as true all statements included in an affidavit submitted to justify the reopening of a proceeding.
Both precedents address different issues. Matter of J-E-D-C- refers to the assessment of statements and evidence, while Matter of Chamorro Castillo examines whether a subpoena sent by mail meets legal requirements when the correspondence is returned undelivered.
In both cases, the possibilities of contesting a deportation order depend on the specific circumstances and the rules applicable in each jurisdiction.
Cubans who suspect they have an order of deportation in absentia or discover that they missed a hearing should consult an immigration attorney or accredited representative as soon as possible, especially before filing a motion to reopen or assuming that the lack of receipt of a letter is sufficient to overturn the court decision.
This information is journalistic in nature and does not constitute individual legal advice.
Related videos:
Filed under: