In Absentia Removal Order Rescinded and Proceedings Terminated: What Happens When a Notice to Appear Never Reaches You

Learning that an immigration judge has already ordered your removal, without ever having appeared in court or even knowing a hearing was scheduled, is one of the most alarming things a person can discover. It is also, in the right circumstances, a situation the law allows to be corrected. V.V.M.’s case shows how proper notice, or the lack of it, can undo an order that might otherwise seem final, and what it took to clear the way back to her green card.

Official Case Review: In Absentia Removal Order Rescinded & Removal Proceedings Terminated

Matter of V.V.M. (2026)

V.V.M. is a native and citizen of Mexico who first entered the United States as a B2 nonimmigrant when she was approximately three years old. She has resided in the United States virtually her entire life, establishing deep family and community ties. After marrying a United States citizen, V.V.M. sought to obtain lawful permanent residence through the adjustment of status process.

While her adjustment application was pending before the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), V.V.M. unexpectedly learned that an Immigration Judge had entered an order of removal against her in absentia. The removal order had been entered after the U.S. Department of Homeland Security mailed the Notice to Appear (“Form I-862”) to the residence of V.V.M.’s former husband more than one year after she had moved out following the breakdown of her marriage. Because she never received notice of the hearing, V.V.M. remained completely unaware that removal proceedings had even been initiated until USCIS denied her application, finding that it lacked jurisdiction over her adjustment application due to the outstanding removal order.

Alex filed a Motion to Reopen and Rescind Order of Removal Entered in Absentia, arguing that reopening was required under section 240(b)(5)(C)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) because V.V.M. did not receive proper notice of her hearing. The motion presented substantial documentary evidence establishing that V.V.M. had moved from the address where USCIS mailed the Notice to Appear more than a year before the agency mailed it, together with sworn statements explaining why the correspondence never reached her. The motion further demonstrated that V.V.M.’s failure to appear was not the product of willful avoidance but rather the result of circumstances beyond her control. After considering the evidence, the Immigration Court granted the motion, reopened proceedings, and rescinded the in absentia removal order.

Following reopening, Alex filed a Motion to Terminate Proceedings, arguing that termination was appropriate pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.18(d)(1)(ii)(B) because V.V.M. was prima facie eligible to adjust status as the spouse of a United States citizen, USCIS would possess jurisdiction over her adjustment application if removal proceedings were terminated, and maintaining proceedings would unnecessarily delay adjudication of her case. The motion relied upon Matter of Coronado Acevedo, 28 I&N Dec. 648 (A.G. 2022), and Matter of Roque-Izada, 29 I&N Dec. 106 (BIA 2025), which recognize the Immigration Court’s authority to terminate proceedings in appropriate circumstances. The Immigration Judge granted the motion and terminated removal proceedings, allowing V.V.M. to continue pursuing lawful permanent residence with USCIS.

What This Case Means: A Removal Order You Never Knew About Is Not Necessarily the End of the Road

For most people, hearing that an immigration judge has already ordered their removal, without their ever having set foot in a courtroom, is a frightening and disorienting experience. V.V.M.’s case is a reminder that an in absentia removal order is not automatically the final word. The law recognizes that removal orders entered without proper notice can, and should, be undone.

What Is an In Absentia Removal Order?

When someone who has been placed in removal proceedings does not appear for their scheduled immigration court hearing, an immigration judge can order that person removed without their side of the case ever being heard. This is called an in absentia order. It is a serious consequence, but it depends entirely on the government having properly notified the person of the hearing in the first place.

Why Notice Matters So Much

The government does not have unlimited discretion in how it notifies someone of a removal hearing. The Notice to Appear and any subsequent hearing notices generally must be sent to the respondent’s current, correct address. In V.V.M.’s case, the notice was mailed more than a year after she had moved out of the address where it was sent, an address tied to a marriage that had already ended. Because the notice never had a realistic chance of reaching her, the law provided a path to challenge the resulting removal order.

Under INA Section 240(b)(5)(C)(ii), an in absentia removal order can be rescinded if the respondent demonstrates that they did not receive proper notice of the hearing. This is different from simply having a good excuse for missing a hearing. It goes to whether the government met its own legal obligations before entering an order against someone who was never given a fair chance to appear.

What Is a Motion to Reopen, and How Is It Different From an Appeal?

An appeal generally asks a higher tribunal, such as the Board of Immigration Appeals, to review whether the immigration judge made a legal or factual error in a decision that was already made with both sides present. A Motion to Reopen is different. It asks the same immigration court to revisit a case based on new evidence or a legal defect, such as improper notice, that was not fully considered the first time around, in V.V.M.’s case because she was never present to raise it. Motions to reopen based on lack of notice are subject to specific legal standards, and the evidence has to affirmatively show both that notice was defective and that the failure to appear was not the respondent’s fault.

Why the Motion to Terminate Mattered Just as Much as the Motion to Reopen

Rescinding the removal order alone would not have been enough to let V.V.M. move forward with her green card. While removal proceedings are active, an immigration judge generally holds exclusive authority over most forms of immigration relief connected to that case, which means USCIS is not always free to independently decide an adjustment of status application filed by someone who is also in removal proceedings. That is why Alex filed a second motion, a Motion to Terminate Proceedings, asking the court to close out the removal case entirely so that jurisdiction over V.V.M.’s green card application would return to USCIS, where it could move forward on its own track. The motion relied on 8 C.F.R. § 1003.18(d)(1)(ii)(B) and on published decisions recognizing that an immigration judge has the authority to terminate proceedings when termination is warranted, including when a respondent has a strong, pending path to lawful status elsewhere in the system.

Key Legal Principles From This Case

A removal order entered without proper notice is not necessarily permanent. The law provides a specific mechanism, a Motion to Reopen based on lack of notice, to challenge it.

• The government’s obligation to provide notice is not satisfied just because a notice was mailed somewhere. It has to be mailed to an address where the person can reasonably be expected to receive it.

• Missing a hearing you never knew about is legally different from missing a hearing you were properly notified of. The first can often be corrected. The second is far harder to undo.

• Rescinding a removal order and resolving the underlying immigration case are two separate legal steps. Both may be necessary to fully clear the way for relief such as a green card.

• Timing and strategy matter. Filing the right motions in the right order, supported by the right evidence, is often what determines whether a case like this succeeds.

Frequently Asked Questions About In Absentia Removal Orders

What is an in absentia removal order? 

It is an order of removal entered by an immigration judge when a person does not appear for a scheduled hearing. The judge decides the case based on the government’s evidence alone, without the respondent present to contest it.

What can I do if I find out there is a removal order against me that I never knew about? 

You may be able to file a Motion to Reopen asking the immigration court to rescind the order. If the motion is based on a lack of proper notice, you generally need to show that the notice of the hearing was not sent to an address where you could reasonably have received it, and that your absence was not your fault.

Is there a deadline to file a Motion to Reopen based on lack of notice? 

Motions to reopen based on lack of proper notice are treated differently from ordinary motions to reopen and are not necessarily subject to the same strict filing deadlines that apply to other types of motions. Deadlines and standards can vary based on the specific facts of a case, which is why it is important to have a case like this reviewed by an immigration attorney as soon as possible.

Can I still apply for a green card if I have an outstanding removal order? 

Generally, no, not while the removal order and the underlying proceedings remain in place, since an immigration judge typically holds authority over the case at that point. Rescinding the removal order and, where appropriate, terminating the proceedings entirely can restore USCIS’s ability to review a pending or future application.

What is the difference between a Motion to Reopen and a Motion to Terminate? 

A Motion to Reopen asks the court to revisit a case where a final decision, such as an in absentia removal order, was already entered. A Motion to Terminate asks the court to close out active removal proceedings altogether, which can be appropriate when a respondent has another clear path to lawful status, such as a pending marriage-based adjustment of status application, that should be handled by USCIS instead.

Why would an immigration judge agree to terminate removal proceedings instead of continuing them? 

Immigration judges can terminate proceedings in certain circumstances recognized by published decisions, including when a respondent is prima facie eligible for relief that another agency, such as USCIS, is better positioned to adjudicate, and when continuing the removal case would only create unnecessary delay without serving any real purpose.

Removal Defense Services in Las Vegas

The Law Office of Alexander R. Vail represents clients throughout the Las Vegas area and across Nevada in removal defense matters, including in absentia removal orders, motions to reopen, and motions to terminate proceedings connected to a pending path to lawful status. If you have learned about a removal order you were never properly notified of, do not wait to seek legal advice. Learn more about our removal defense services, or contact us at (725) 221-5998 for a free consultation. We offer services in English, Spanish, and Hindi.

This case summary is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every immigration case depends on unique facts and circumstances. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. If you need legal assistance, please contact a qualified immigration attorney to discuss your specific situation.