receive mail in a regular and timely manner.”). We fail to understand, though, how that duty translates into the additional burden of ensuring that the government will properly address a hearing notice mailed to the alien. The government contends that this is so because the alien is “in the best position” to direct the government how to address the hearing notice. But this assertion runs counter to the INA’s mandate that it is the government’s duty to ensure that hearing notices are successfully “given” to the alien, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2)(A) (1988), as well as the notion that, in most instances, it is the government’s responsibility to ensure that notice by mail is successfully delivered, see, e.g., Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 126 S.Ct. 1708, 1716-21, 164 L.Ed.2d 415 (2006) (<HOLDING>); Terezov v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 558, 565 (7th
holding statute requiring parties in tax suit to take notice of subsequent pleadings was not unconstitutional when city failed to take such notice holding that notice of administrative forfeiture sent to prisoner did not require actual notice to the property owner only notice reasonably calculated to apprise a party of the pendency of the action holding notice of impending tax sale of property was not reasonably calculated to reach property owner when notice sent via certified letter by state was returned unclaimed and state did not take additional reasonable steps to ensure notice was provided holding that due process requires that notice be reasonably calculated under all circumstances to provide parties with notice of the pending action holding that when the state sends a letter threatening a tax foreclosure via certified mail and the letter is returned unclaimed due process requires that the state take additional reasonable steps to attempt to provide notice to the property owner before selling his property if it is practicable to do so