VERIFIED NEWS · BIA PRECEDENT

BIA changes its rule for mailed removal-hearing notices

The en banc Board of Immigration Appeals changed its interpretation of when mailed notice is sufficient in removal proceedings. The ruling is an administrative precedent—not a regulation, federal-court judgment, arrest operation, or nationwide statistic.

Attorney General Eric Holder answering questions from employees during a visit to Executive Office for Immigration Review offices

Justice Department photograph by Lonnie Tague, published July 1, 2009. Attorney General Eric Holder takes questions during an EOIR office visit. This official DOJ image is illustrative: it does not depict the Board panel, the respondent, a mailed notice, or the 2026 decision. Original DOJ gallery ↗

By U.S. Immigration Brief Editorial DeskPublished September 4, 2026Last verified September 4, 2026

What the Board held

In Matter of DIJI, 30 I&N Dec. 1, the BIA said DHS may rely on the most recent address a person has provided when it mails a Notice to Appear by regular mail. For an in absentia proceeding—a hearing conducted when the respondent does not appear—the Board also said written notice is sufficient when mailed to that most recent address, including an address supplied before the Notice to Appear was issued.

The ruling overrules an older BIA precedent

The Board expressly overruled Matter of G-Y-R-, a 2001 en banc decision. The new majority rejected that decision’s conclusion that an address could qualify for this purpose only after a person had received the Notice to Appear and its address-related warnings. Two appellate immigration judges wrote separate dissents.

How the case reached the Board

The appeal followed an immigration judge’s denial of a motion to reopen and rescind an in absentia removal order. The Board dismissed the appeal and denied the related stay request as moot. Those results concern the record in one case; the published legal interpretation is the part designated as precedent.

What the decision does not establish

The opinion does not create a new form, announce a new ICE or CBP operation, or report how many notices are mailed or how many people miss hearings. It does not decide whether mail reached any other person, and it does not resolve how a federal court might address the interpretation in a later case.

Primary federal sources

Corrections: No corrections have been made. Later modification, Attorney General review, or judicial review will be labeled and verified against a new federal record.