CA1: In absentia removals

Grigous v. Gonzales, No. 05-2105 After being removed in absentia, the petitioner moved to reopen.  There was considerable confusion about who was his attorney, and whether that attorney was available.  The attorney was disbarred.  On habeas, his new attorney argued that the only issue was “notice” rather than “ineffective assistance.”  The Real ID Act resulted in a transfer to the Court of Appeals.  The court rejects his claim that the petitioner didn’t understand the notice to appear, and explains the requirements for filing a motion to reopen if someone is deported in absentia.