The Sixth Circuit interpreted INA §240 as requiring that personal service be made upon a noncitizen whenever practicable, and held that personal service to a represented noncitizen’s counsel may, in certain cases, constitute personal service to the noncitizen. The court upheld the Board of Immigration Appeals, finding that the respondent, who was ordered removed in absentia after failing to appear at a master calendar hearing in his removal proceedings, had received sufficient notice under the INA, where the respondent’s counsel was personally served with written notice of the hearing on the day that he appeared with the respondent in immigration court.
[contentblock id=1 img=html.png]