Todorov v. Gonzales

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circum-
stances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
December 21, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-60961
Summary Calendar
STOIL JELEV TODOROV,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
No. A75 322 116
--------------------
Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Stoil Todorov petitions for review of the decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of the
immigration judge (“IJ”) denying his motion to reopen the removal
proceedings and to rescind an in absentia order of removal. Todor-
ov argues that he is entitled to have the removal proceedings
reopened and the in absentia order rescinded because there is

-- 1 of 3 --

objective evidence that he did not receive notice of the hearing
date. He contends that the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(“INS”) denied him due process by releasing him without obtaining
his address. He also asserts that he was misled by the fraudulent
assertion of an immigration consultant that he was not required to
provide his address.
Motions to reopen removal proceedings are not favored. INS v.
Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992). The Attorney General has broad
discretion to grant or deny such motions, and there is no general
statutory authority for reopening deportation proceedings. Id. at
322-23. Thus, the denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed only
for abuse of discretion. Id. at 323.
Todorov had a statutory duty to provide the Attorney General
with a contact address. 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(F)(i). The require-
ment that an alien receive a written notice of a hearing date is
inapplicable if he fails to do so. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(B).
The record reflects that Todorov was given oral notice, in the
Bulgarian language, that he was required to provide an address and
of the consequences of failing to do so. Todorov does not dispute
that he failed to provide a specific contact address.
Todorov did not file a timely motion to have the in absentia
order of removal set aside and did not show that his failure to
appear was caused by exceptional circumstances beyond his control.
8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i). Further, he cannot rely on equitable
estoppel to toll the time limitation, because he waited four years

-- 2 of 3 --

after learning about the final order of removal to file a motion to
reopen. Todorov’s due process argument also fails because his
failure to provide an address is the reason he did not receive no-
tice. See United States v. Estrada-Trochez, 66 F.3d 733, 735-36
(5th Cir. 1995). Todorov was not entitled to have the matter re-
opened, because he failed to establish grounds entitling him to
permanent relief. See Ogbemudia v. INS, 988 F2d 596, 600 (5th Cir.
1993).
The petition for review is DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --