- 10 -
Petitioner does not dispute, however, that he received the
October 11 letter, which was also mailed to the Parker Lane #11
address. If nothing else, the October 11 letter should have
alerted petitioner that he needed to update his address with
respondent.8 Moreover, after the October 18 letter was returned,
the Appeals officer re-sent the correspondence to the Parker Lane
#1 address, as suggested by transcripts in respondent’s
administrative file. This letter was not returned. We believe
it most likely that petitioner received it (despite his
allegation to the contrary), just as he admits receiving the
notice of determination that the Appeals Office mailed to the
Parker Lane #1 address a short time later in December 2001.
But even if petitioner did not receive the October 18
letter, we are not persuaded that the Appeals Office was at
fault, especially considering that petitioner moved from the
address he listed on his Form 12153 without informing respondent.
Cody’s attempt to contact petitioner at two different addresses,
one supplied by petitioner himself and the other suggested by
respondent’s records, demonstrates reasonable effort in these
circumstances, rather than a defect in the hearing process.
8 It may be that petitioner’s receipt of the Oct. 11, 2001,
letter lulled him into believing that all mail sent to him at the
Parker Lane #11 address would be successfully forwarded to him.
We are unpersuaded by petitioner’s suggestion that it was somehow
respondent’s fault that the Oct. 18, 2001, letter was not
forwarded to him.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011