An in absentia order is an order that is entered by the Judge in your absence (in absentia). If you are not present in Court the Judge may enter an order against you if she believes that you were given proper notice of the hearing and should have been there. If this happens you can file a motion to reopen the case. Typically such a motion much be filed within 180 days according to the regulations but there is an exception if it was an in absentia order and the reason you were not there was because you did not receive notice of the hearing i.e. no one informed you that you had a hearing that day. If you missed your hearing and you are trying to file a motion to reopen pro se (without a lawyer) then you should read this article about filing a motion to reopen pro se and take a look at the EOIR template MTRO for non-represented respondents. You should also read the blog post, What if I Missed my Hearing and Was Ordered Removed. This article contains the Regulations, Statutes, Court Rules, and Case Law relating to Motions to Reopen In Absentia Orders. REGULATIONS 8 CFR § 1003.23 8 CFR § 1003.23 – Reopening or reconsideration before the immigration court 8 CFR §1003.23(b)(4)(iii) (iii) Order entered in absentia in deportation or exclusion proceedings. (A) An order entered in absentia in deportation proceedings may be rescinded only upon a motion to reopen filed: (1) Within 180 days after the date of the order of deportation if the alien demonstrates that the failure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the alien (e.g., serious illness of the alien or serious illness or death of an immediate relative of the alien, but not including less compelling circumstances); or (2) At any time if the alien demonstrates that he or she did not receive notice or if the alien demonstrates that he or she was in federal or state custody and the failure to appear was through no fault of the alien. STATUTES 8 U.S.C. §1229a(b)(5)(C)(i) In absentia removal order may be rescinded upon a motion to reopen if the noncitizen demonstrates that the failure to appear at the removal hearing was because of “exceptional circumstances.” 8 U.S.C. §1229a(b)(5)(C)(i). That term refers to circumstances beyond the noncitizen’s control, such as “serious illness or death” of the noncitizen’s spouse, child, or parent, but does not include “less compelling circumstances.” 8 U.S.C. §1229a(e)(1). The panel explained that, in making the exceptional circumstances determination, the IJ and BIA must look to the totality of the circumstances and must consider certain relevant factors. INA §240(e)(1) INA §240(e)(1) Exceptional Circumstances beyond the alien’s control INA §240(b)(5)(C)(ii) INA §240(b)(5)(C)(ii) Lack of Notice EOIR Practice Manual https://www.justice.gov/eoir/reference-materials/ic/chapter-5/9 (a) In General — A motion to reopen requesting that an in absentia order be rescinded asks the immigration judge to consider the reasons why the respondent did not appear at the respondent’s scheduled hearing.  See Chapter 4.17 (In Absentia Hearing). … **(1) Content — A motion to reopen to rescind an in absentia order must demonstrate that: the failure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances; the failure to appear was because the respondent did not receive proper notice; or the failure to appear was because the respondent was in federal or state custody and the failure to appear was through no fault of the respondent. INA § 240(b)(5)(C), 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii).  The term “exceptional circumstances” refers to exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the respondent (such as battery or extreme cruelty to the respondent or any child or parent of the respondent, serious illness of the respondent or serious illness or death of the spouse, child, or parent of the respondent, but not including less compelling circumstances).  INA § 240(e)(1). **(2) Time limits — (A) Within 180 days — If the motion to reopen to rescind an in absentia order is based on an allegation that the failure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances, the motion must be filed within 180 days after the in absentia order.  See INA § 240(b)(5)(C), 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii). (B) At any time — If the motion to reopen to rescind an in absentia order is based on an allegation that the respondent did not receive proper notice of the hearing, or that the respondent was in federal or state custody and the failure to appear was through no fault of the respondent, the motion may be filed at any time.  See INA § 240(b)(5)(C), 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii). (C) Responses — Responses to motions to reopen to rescind in absentia orders are due within ten (10) days after the motion was received by the immigration court, unless otherwise specified by the immigration judge. **(3) Number limits — The respondent is permitted to file only one motion to reopen to rescind an in absentia order.  8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii). **(4) Automatic stay — The removal of the respondent is automatically stayed pending disposition by the immigration judge of the motion to reopen to rescind an in absentia order in removal proceedings.  See INA § 240(b)(5)(C), 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) BIA CASE LAW Matter of Haim, 19 I&N Dec. 641, 642 (BIA 1988) Matter of M-R-A-, 24 I&N Dec. 665 (BIA 2008) Matter of C-R-C-, 24 I&N Dec. 677 (BIA 2008). In determining whether the respondent has overcome this presumption, the immigration judge must consider both circumstantial and corroborating evidence, and may consider a variety of factors, including (but not limited) to: CIRCUIT COURT CASE LAW MONTEJO-GONZALEZ V. GARLAND, No. 21-304 (9th Cir. 2024) A mother and her two minor children, who entered the United States seeking asylum, were scheduled for an initial hearing before an immigration judge (IJ) in Seattle, Washington. On their way to the hearing, they encountered two major car accidents, causing them to be two hours late. Upon arrival, they attempted to have their case heard but were unsuccessful. The IJ ordered them removed in absentia. They promptly moved to reopen the case, arguing that exceptional circumstances justified their late arrival. The Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the IJ and BIA abused