You never got the hearing notice. The judge ordered you removed anyway, and you found out from a lawyer, a USCIS denial, or an officer at your door. On September 18, 2026, the Ninth Circuit held in a published opinion that when the government mails the only hearing notice to an address it had no good reason to trust, and then does nothing when that notice comes back undeliverable, the resulting in absentia order violates due process.
The case is Meza Medina v. Blanche, Nos. 20-70017 and 24-5144 (9th Cir. Sept. 18, 2026). If you were released on bond and a relative filled out the bond paperwork, read this carefully. The facts will sound familiar.
What is an in absentia removal order?
INA § 240(b)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A), requires an immigration judge to order you removed if you do not attend a hearing after written notice was provided, so long as DHS proves by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the notice was provided and that you are removable. The statute treats notice as sufficient if it went to “the most recent address provided” by you under INA § 239(a)(1)(F). And under § 240(b)(5)(B), no written notice is required at all if you never provided an address.
That is why the address question decides these cases. The regulation says the same thing: written notice “shall be considered sufficient if it was provided at the most recent address provided by the alien.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.26(d).
How do you undo an in absentia order?
Congress gave you two routes, and only two. Under INA § 240(b)(5)(C), the order may be rescinded:
- On a motion to reopen filed within 180 days of the order, if the failure to appear was caused by “exceptional circumstances,” which § 240(e)(1) defines narrowly: battery or extreme cruelty, your serious illness, or the serious illness or death of a spouse, child, or parent. Traffic, a missed bus, or a bad calendar entry do not qualify.
- On a motion to reopen filed at any time, if you did not receive notice in accordance with INA § 239(a)(1) or (2), or you were in federal or state custody and the failure to appear was not your fault.
The same subsection provides that filing either motion “shall stay the removal of the alien pending disposition of the motion by the immigration judge.” That automatic stay is one of the most valuable protections in the statute, and many people never use it because they do not know it exists.
The stakes of leaving the order in place are larger than the removal itself. Under § 240(b)(7), a person ordered removed in absentia who received the required oral warnings is barred for ten years from cancellation of removal, voluntary departure, adjustment of status, change of status, and registry. A green card through a U.S. citizen spouse can be foreclosed by a hearing you never knew about.
What happened in Meza Medina?
Meza Medina was arrested by ICE in 2017 and served with a Notice to Appear while detained in Tacoma. His brother and sister-in-law posted a $20,000 bond. The bond form asked for the address where the “Alien to reside at.” They did not know it, texted a friend, and wrote down his correct residential address. Nobody asked for a mailing address, and he never saw the form.
He lived in an apartment building with no mail receptacle. He received mail at a P.O. Box. DHS forwarded the bond-form address to the immigration court as if he had reported it himself. The court mailed the hearing notice there. It came back marked “RETURN TO SENDER, NO MAIL RECEPTACLE, UNABLE TO FORWARD.” The government made no other attempt to reach him. The judge ordered him removed in absentia on a pre-prepared form reciting that he had been given written notice. He had not.
Two days later he called the lawyer from his bond hearing, learned of the order, and moved to reopen within eleven days. The immigration judge denied the motion under the presumption of delivery for regular mail in Matter of M-R-A-, 24 I&N Dec. 665 (BIA 2008). The BIA affirmed. At that hearing he would have presented evidence of eligibility to remain based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen.
What did the Ninth Circuit hold?
Judge W. Fletcher, joined by Judge Paez, granted the petition. The panel applied the rule from Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950): notice must be “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances,” to reach the person. It relied on Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006), and the court’s own en banc decision in United States v. Rivera-Valdes, 157 F.4th 978 (9th Cir. 2025), which holds that when the government learns its notice failed, it must take additional reasonable steps if practicable.
Three points in the opinion matter for anyone with an old in absentia order.
First, a bond form is not an address “provided by the alien.” The government invoked § 1003.26(d). The court’s answer: “To state the obvious, the address used by the government had not been ‘provided by the alien.'” The bond obligor was asked the wrong question, and a third party answered it.
Second, statutory compliance does not end the inquiry. Quoting Rivera-Valdes, the panel held that compliance with statutory notice requirements “does not resolve whether notice is reasonably calculated” under the facts of the individual case. Due process is a separate floor.
Third, a returned envelope obligates the government to do more. The notice came back undeliverable, and the government had his phone number on the same bond form. The court found remand unnecessary because obvious alternatives existed: mail the notice to an address he supplied, or call him. The removal order was improper, and his first motion to reopen should have been granted.
Judge Desai dissented. She read the record to show Meza Medina never gave the government a mailing address, and she would have sent the case back for the agency to decide whether practicable alternatives existed. She agreed, though, that once the notice was returned, the government had a duty to try again if it practicably could. On that point all three judges agreed.
This is a published, precedential Ninth Circuit decision binding in California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, and Hawaii. With a dissent in the case, the government may seek rehearing en banc. Watch the docket before relying on it for anything irreversible.
Who does this decision help?
It helps people whose notice problem was created by the government’s choice of address, not by their own failure to report one. The strongest facts look like this: the address came from a bond form, a detention intake sheet, or another third-party source; the hearing notice was returned undeliverable, and the record shows it; and the government had a phone number, an attorney of record, or a better address and did not use it.
It does not help someone who moved and never filed a change of address. Section 240(b)(5)(B) still applies, and due process does not require the government to do the “impossible or impractical.” Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314. It also does not revive the defective-NTA argument: in Campos-Chaves v. Garland, 602 U.S. 447 (2024), the Supreme Court held that a noncitizen who received a proper notice of hearing under § 239(a)(2) cannot rescind an in absentia order because the original NTA lacked the time and place.
What are the mistakes that forfeit this argument?
Relying on anyone else to report your address. The NTA tells you to file Form EOIR-33 with the immigration court. The regulation gives you five days after any change of address. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.15(d)(2). An AR-11 filed with USCIS within ten days under 8 C.F.R. § 265.1 is a separate obligation and does not update the immigration court.
Filing the wrong motion. An “exceptional circumstances” motion dies at 180 days. A lack-of-notice motion under § 240(b)(5)(C)(ii) has no deadline. I have seen people lose years because the first motion was framed under the wrong clause.
Filing without the record. You cannot prove the envelope came back without the Record of Proceedings. Order it from EOIR before you file, and get a sworn declaration that explains, in specifics, where you received mail and why.
Leaving the country. Under INA § 101(g), a person under a removal order who departs is considered removed. That triggers the reentry bars in INA § 212(a)(9)(A) and ends the motion.
Waiting. The statute imposes no deadline on a lack-of-notice motion, but there is no stay until the motion is filed, and every month an order sits unchallenged is a month in which ICE can execute it.
What should you do now?
Check your case status through EOIR’s Automated Case Information portal or at 1-800-898-7180 with your A-number. If there is an order, get the Record of Proceedings. Look for the hearing notice and the returned envelope, and note which address was used and where it came from. Then file a motion to reopen and rescind with the immigration judge under § 240(b)(5)(C)(ii), which triggers the automatic stay, together with any relief you would have sought at the hearing.
One practical note on cost: the new immigration court motion fee does not apply to a motion to reopen an in absentia order filed under § 240(b)(5)(C)(ii). 8 U.S.C. § 1812(g)(3)(A). I covered the rest of the October 2026 EOIR fee changes in EOIR Filing Fees Are Going Up October 1. If you are detained while this is pending, the Ninth Circuit’s bond-hearing ruling is covered in Bond Hearings for People Detained in the Interior.
If you have an in absentia order and you never got the notice, the stay only exists once the motion is on file. Call (562) 495-0554 or book a free consultation at blerner.timetap.com. Consultations on removal, detention, and deportation matters are free.
This article is general information about United States immigration law and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration outcomes depend on the specific facts of each case. Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner, A Professional Corporation, 3233 E. Broadway, Long Beach, CA 90803. Brian D. Lerner is a Certified Specialist in Immigration and Nationality Law, The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization.