On September 3, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) issued an important precedent decision that could affect immigrants who were ordered removed after missing an Immigration Court hearing.
In Matter of Diji, 30 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 2026), the BIA changed more than two decades of precedent concerning Notices to Appear (“NTAs”), address changes, and in absentia removal orders.
The decision makes some lack-of-notice cases more difficult. However, for cases arising in Georgia, Florida, and Alabama, there is an important additional consideration: these states are within the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and existing Eleventh Circuit precedent may provide arguments that remain available despite the BIA’s new decision.
What Is a Notice to Appear?
A Notice to Appear, commonly called an NTA, is the charging document the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) uses to initiate removal proceedings against a noncitizen.
Among other information, an NTA contains important instructions concerning the obligation to provide immigration authorities with a current address and to report changes of address.
Failing to appear for a scheduled Immigration Court hearing can have extremely serious consequences. An Immigration Judge may enter an in absentia removal order, meaning a person can be ordered removed even though he or she was not physically present in court.
This is why proper notice can become one of the most important issues in a motion to reopen an in absentia removal order.
What Did Matter of Diji Change?
Before Matter of Diji, immigration attorneys frequently relied upon Matter of G-Y-R-, 23 I&N Dec. 181 (BIA 2001).
In Matter of G-Y-R-, the BIA addressed circumstances in which the government mailed an NTA to an old address, the noncitizen never received it, and the person therefore never received the NTA’s warnings
concerning the obligation to keep an address updated.
On September 3, 2026, the BIA expressly overruled Matter of G-Y-R-. In Matter of Diji, the BIA held that when DHS serves an NTA by regular mail, it may generally rely upon the most recent address previously
provided by the noncitizen, including an address that the person provided before DHS issued the NTA.
This is a significant change. It means that simply arguing, “I never received my NTA because DHS mailed it to an address I gave immigration before removal proceedings started,” may no longer be enough under BIA precedent.
Does Matter of Diji Apply the Same Way in Georgia?
Not necessarily. Immigration cases arising in Georgia are governed not only by BIA precedent but also by decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which has jurisdiction over federal immigration cases arising in Georgia, Florida, and Alabama.
This distinction is particularly important because of Dragomirescu v. U.S. Attorney General, 44 F.4th 1351 (11th Cir. 2022). In Dragomirescu, the Eleventh Circuit independently analyzed the statutory provisions
governing notice and in absentia removal. The court addressed the relationship between receiving an initial NTA containing the statutory address warnings and the consequences of later failing to update an address.
This potentially creates an important argument after Diji: the BIA can overrule its own precedent, but it cannot overrule binding precedent from a federal Court of Appeals. In fact, Matter of Diji itself recognizes that the BIA must follow the law of the federal circuit governing the particular case.
Therefore, attorneys handling lack-of-notice cases in Georgia should carefully analyze Dragomirescu rather than assuming that the overruling of G-Y-R- automatically ends every argument involving a person who never received the initial NTA.
Matter of Diji Does Not Mean Every Lack-of-Notice Case Is Lost
Another important point is that Matter of Diji does not eliminate every argument based upon actual nonreceipt of immigration court notices.
Evidence matters. In Matter of Diji, the BIA specifically noted weaknesses in the evidence presented by the respondent. Among other things, the respondent did not submit his own affidavit or affidavits from family members or other people with knowledge of whether the immigration documents were received.
For someone seeking to reopen an in absentia removal order, evidence may include a detailed sworn declaration explaining why the NTA or hearing notice was never received; declarations from family members
or other people living at the address; evidence establishing where the person actually lived at the relevant time; returned or undeliverable immigration correspondence; evidence that the person acted promptly after learning about the removal order; evidence showing that the person had a reason and incentive to attend Immigration Court; and other documentation supporting the claim that the person did not receive notice.
The BIA continues to recognize Matter of M-R-A-, 24 I&N Dec. 665 (BIA 2008), which addresses the presumption of delivery when Immigration Court correspondence is sent by regular mail and the evidence that may be considered when determining whether that presumption has been overcome.
Already Have an In Absentia Removal Order? Do Not Assume Your Case Is Over.
If you missed an Immigration Court hearing and later discovered that you were ordered removed in absentia, Matter of Diji makes it especially important to have the entire procedural history and notice record reviewed by an experienced immigration attorney.
The analysis may depend on questions such as: Did you ever receive the original NTA? What address did DHS use? When did you provide that address? Did you move? Were any hearing notices returned as undeliverable? Did you receive any other immigration correspondence? How quickly did you act after discovering the removal order? And, importantly, which federal circuit has jurisdiction over your immigration case?
The answers can significantly affect the legal arguments available.
Immigration Cases in Georgia Require Careful Analysis After Matter of Diji
Matter of Diji is an important change in immigration law, but it should not be interpreted to mean that every person who failed to receive an NTA or hearing notice has lost the ability to challenge an in absentia removal order.
For cases in the Eleventh Circuit—including Georgia, Florida, and Alabama—existing federal appellate precedent must also be considered.
At Zambrano Law, our immigration attorneys represent individuals in removal proceedings, immigration bond matters, motions to reopen, and other complex immigration cases. We carefully analyze the applicable BIA and federal circuit precedent because the law governing immigration court notice can depend heavily on both the facts of the individual case and the jurisdiction where the proceedings arise.
If you or a family member discovered an old removal order, missed an Immigration Court hearing, or never received a Notice to Appear, contact Zambrano Law to schedule a consultation and have your case reviewed.
This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law is highly fact-specific, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome in another case.
About the Author
This article was written by Shirley C. Zambrano, Esq., Managing Attorney of Zambrano Law. If you or a family member has an in absentia removal order, missed an Immigration Court hearing, or has questions about a Notice to Appear, call Zambrano Law at 770-870-6438 to schedule a consultation.