A Stale Address Can Support an In Absentia Removal Order: What Matter of Diji Changes

An old address in a USCIS file can now support service of the document that starts removal proceedings. In Matter of Diji, decided September 3, 2026, the en banc Board of Immigration Appeals held that the Department of Homeland Security may mail a Notice to Appear to the most recent address a noncitizen previously provided, even when that address was supplied before the Notice to Appear existed.

The decision overrules Matter of G-Y-R-, a 2001 precedent that had limited when an address supplied before removal proceedings could support an in absentia order. The practical point is immediate: updating one government system, or asking the Postal Service to forward mail, may not protect someone from missing a hearing and being ordered removed in their absence.

What the Board held

A Notice to Appear, often called an NTA, is the charging document DHS uses to begin removal proceedings. Federal law generally calls for personal service, but permits service by mail when personal service is not practicable. Later hearing notices may also be mailed.

In Diji, DHS mailed the respondent's NTA by regular mail on April 29, 2019, to an address he had previously given USCIS. He said he had moved in January 2019. The immigration court later mailed several hearing notices, including a November 3, 2022 notice setting a hearing for April 6, 2023. He did not appear, and the court entered an in absentia removal order.

The respondent sought reopening in June 2025 after, according to his motion, learning about the case during a USCIS adjustment interview. The Board dismissed his appeal. Its published holding says that DHS may rely on the most recent address the person provided when mailing an NTA by regular mail. For an in absentia proceeding, the Board said written notice is sufficient if mailed to that address, including an address provided before the NTA was issued.

This is a nationwide administrative precedent. Published BIA decisions bind immigration judges, the Board, and DHS unless the Attorney General or a federal court modifies or overrules them. Federal appellate law may also control in the circuit where a case arises.

What the decision does not make automatic

Diji does not mean that every lost letter automatically produces a valid removal order. To order removal in absentia, the government still must establish that the required written notice was provided and that the person is removable. A person may still seek rescission through a motion to reopen.

The statute provides two principal routes. A motion filed within 180 days may rely on exceptional circumstances that caused the failure to appear. A motion may be filed at any time when the person demonstrates that required notice was not received, or that the person was in federal or state custody and failed to appear through no fault of their own.

The difficult change is what can count as sufficient mailed notice. Regular mail carries a weaker presumption of delivery than certified mail, and that presumption can be rebutted. But evidence matters. The respondent in Diji submitted argument from counsel without his own affidavit or affidavits from people who knew the relevant facts. The Board also considered whether notices were returned, diligence after learning of the order, and incentive to appear. It found the record insufficient to overcome the presumption of delivery.

Why the ruling matters in family cases

The facts show how removal and benefits systems can collide. The respondent said he discovered the removal proceedings at a USCIS interview connected to adjustment of status. He submitted evidence of marriage to a U.S. citizen on appeal, but the Board said the existing in absentia order made him ineligible for adjustment in that case under the statute's consequences for failing to appear.

Marriage to a U.S. citizen does not erase an in absentia order. Nor does an approved family petition, by itself, reopen proceedings or cure a notice problem. A person who learns of an unknown removal order during a marriage-based case needs the order, NTA, hearing notices, service records, and case history reviewed before assuming that an adjustment application can continue normally.

USPS, USCIS, and EOIR are separate address systems

A move may require more than one notification. Treat these as separate tasks:

• Postal Service: File a USPS change of address when appropriate, but do not rely on forwarding as an immigration update. USCIS expressly warns that changing an address with USPS does not update USCIS and that USPS will not forward USCIS mail.
• USCIS: Most noncitizens must report an address change to USCIS within 10 days. USCIS provides an online change-of-address process and Form AR-11. Keep the confirmation and verify that each pending receipt is associated with the current address. Special procedures apply to certain VAWA, T, U, and abuse-waiver matters.
• Immigration court or BIA: A person with a pending court case must notify the immigration court or BIA within five working days. Use the correct EOIR-33 process. A separate update is required for each affected family member. The immigration-court form and BIA form are not interchangeable.

EOIR's current form instructions add another warning: the court changes its records when it receives the proper EOIR-33, not merely because a different address appears in a motion or another filing. The instructions also require delivery of a copy to the appropriate DHS office unless the electronic-filing rules say otherwise.

An address change does not, by itself, move a case to a different immigration court. A motion to change venue is a separate request, and every scheduled hearing remains controlling unless the court grants that motion or issues different instructions.

If a hearing may already have been missed

Do not assume that the absence of a paper notice means there is no case. Check EOIR's official case information, gather every A-number used by affected family members, and obtain copies of the NTA, hearing notices, mailing records, and removal order. Save envelopes, returned-mail records, address-change confirmations, lease records, and contemporaneous communications that can establish where someone lived and what they did after learning of the case.

A motion to reopen should not be reduced to a generic letter saying that mail never arrived. The statutory ground, timing rule, evidence of nonreceipt, governing circuit law, and requested relief all matter. A prior order can also create detention and enforcement risk, so the sequence of any filing or agency appointment should be assessed carefully.

What remains uncertain

The Board sat en banc, but two judges filed dissenting opinions. One dissent argued that the majority had not justified overturning G-Y-R-; another raised due-process concerns. Most BIA decisions are subject to federal judicial review, and a controlling circuit decision can limit how the agency applies its own precedent.

Diji does not announce a delayed effective date or say that every pending motion will be resolved the same way. The result will still depend on the address record, method of service, evidence of receipt or nonreceipt, procedural history, and law governing the case. What has changed is the starting point: an address supplied before removal proceedings can now carry the weight that G-Y-R- had denied it.

If an old address, missed hearing, or unexpected removal order is affecting a pending immigration matter, you can contact Zero One Legal through the existing screening process to discuss whether the firm can assist or direct you to appropriate counsel.

This article provides general educational information and is not legal advice. Immigration rules, forms, fees, and procedures can change, and the law may apply differently to individual facts. Reading this article or contacting Zero One Legal does not create an attorney-client relationship. No result is guaranteed.