LAURENT CASTRO

page
419
Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 419 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4159
Matter of Mario Alberto LAURENT CASTRO, Respondent
Decided by Board December 30, 20251
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Where the respondent did not appear at a hearing, was properly served with notice of the
missed hearing, and the Department of Homeland Security provided evidence of the
respondent’s removability, the Immigration Judge erred in continuing removal proceedings
rather than entering an in absentia removal order.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: Pro se
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: 	Jessica E. Long, Assistant
Chief Counsel
BEFORE: Board Panel: OWEN and GALLOW, Appellate Immigration Judges; PICOS,
Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge.
OWEN, Appellate Immigration Judge:
The 	Department 	of 	Homeland 	Security 	(“DHS”) 	has 	filed 	an
interlocutory appeal from the 	Immigration 	Judge’s 	October 14, 	2025,
decision sua sponte continuing these removal proceedings to a later date. As
a general rule, the Board does not entertain interlocutory appeals. 	See
Matter of M-D-, 24 I&N Dec. 138, 139 (BIA 2007). However, in this case,
we determine that it is appropriate to take jurisdiction over this interlocutory
appeal. 	DHS’ 	appeal 	will 	be 	sustained, 	the 	order 	continuing 	these
proceedings will be vacated, and the record will be remanded.
On October 14, 2025, the respondent failed to appear at the initial master
calendar hearing. DHS moved to proceed in absentia and argued before the
Immigration Judge that the respondent was properly served with the notice
to appear by regular mail, and the Record of Deportable/Inadmissible
Alien 	(Form 	I-213) 	established 	the 	respondent’s 	removability. 	See
section 240(b)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”),
1 	Pursuant to Order No. 6585-2026, dated January 23, 2026, the Attorney General
designated the Board’s decision in Matter of Laurent Castro (BIA Dec. 30, 2025), as
precedent in all proceedings involving the same issue or issues. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(g)(3)
(2025). Editorial changes have been made consistent with the designation of the case as a
precedent.

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 419 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4159
page
420
8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A) (2024) (stating that after proper written notice has
been provided to the alien or the alien’s counsel of record, an alien who does
not attend a hearing shall be ordered removed in absentia if DHS establishes
by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the written notice was
provided and the alien is removable); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.26(c) (2025); see also
Matter of G-Y-R-, 23 I&N Dec. 181, 187–88 (BIA 2001) (holding that once
an alien is aware of his responsibility to keep his address updated, an
Immigration Judge may proceed with the hearing and order the alien
removed in absentia if he fails to appear). 	The Immigration Judge denied
DHS’ request to proceed in absentia and instead sua sponte continued the
removal proceedings to November 25, 2025. 	On November 24, 2025, the
Immigration Judge issued a notice of hearing resetting the master calendar
hearing to January 6, 2027.
Section 240(b)(5)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A), provides
that the respondent, after receiving written notice of removability under
section 239(a)(1) or (2) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1), (2) (2024), shall
be ordered removed in absentia if he or she does not attend his or her removal
hearing and DHS establishes that it provided the respondent written notice
of removability. 	The written notice “shall be considered sufficient . . . if
provided at the most recent address provided under section 239(a)(1)(F)” of
the 	INA, 	8 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1229(a)(1)(F). 	INA 	§ 	240(b)(5)(A), 	8 	U.S.C.
§ 1229a(b)(5)(A). “[T]he purpose of in absentia proceedings is to determine
whether the DHS can meet its burden to establish that the alien, who did not
appear, received proper notice and is removable as charged.” 	Matter of
Sanchez-Herbert, 26 I&N Dec. 43, 44 (BIA 2012). 	The use of the term
“shall” in section 240(b)(5)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A),
indicates that the requirement that an Immigration Judge proceed in absentia
is mandatory. 	See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.26(c)(2) (stating that an alien shall be
ordered removed in absentia if, among other things, it is established that he
or she received “written notice of the time and place of proceedings and
written notice of the consequences of failure to appear”).
Here, DHS demonstrated that proper notice of the hearing had been
provided 	to 	the 	respondent, 	as 	the 	notice 	to 	appear 	containing 	that
information was properly served by mail, as evidenced in the certificate of
service. 	The notice to appear was mailed to the respondent’s last known
address and there is no indication that it was not received. 	See Matter of
M-R-A-, 24 I&N Dec. 665, 673 (BIA 2008) (holding that where a notice to
appear or notice of hearing is properly addressed and sent by regular mail
according to normal office procedures, there is a presumption of delivery).
Thus, the respondent was properly notified of the time, date, and location of
his immigration hearing. 	DHS filed a Form I-213, providing clear and

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 419 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4159
page
421
convincing evidence of removability, and moved to proceed in absentia.
Under these circumstances, an in absentia hearing should have been held.
The Immigration Judge did not set forth any compelling reasons for resetting
the 	matter 	for 	a 	new 	hearing 	where 	DHS 	had 	already 	established
removability. Accordingly, the following orders will be entered.
ORDER: 	DHS’ appeal is sustained, and the Immigration Judge’s
October 14, 2025, order continuing these proceedings is vacated.
FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded for further proceedings
consistent with this decision.