Summary
The Supreme Court held that a notice to appear that fails to specify the time and place of removal proceedings is not a "notice to appear under section 1229(a)" and therefore does not trigger the stop-time rule ending an alien's continuous physical presence for cancellation of removal eligibility. The Court found the statutory text unambiguous, rejecting the BIA's contrary interpretation and declining to apply Chevron deference. The decision reversed the First Circuit and remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Does a notice to appear that fails to specify the time and place of the removal proceedings trigger the stop-time rule under 8 U.S.C. §1229b(d)(1)?
Holdings
- A putative notice to appear that fails to designate the specific time or place of the noncitizen's removal proceedings is not a 'notice to appear under section 1229(a)' and therefore does not trigger the stop-time rule.
Key quotations
“The answer is as obvious as it seems: No. A notice that does not inform a noncitizen when and where to appear for removal proceedings is not a 'notice to appear under section 1229(a)' and therefore does not trigger the stop-time rule.” (at 2)
“A putative notice to appear that fails to designate the specific time or place of the noncitizen's removal proceedings is not a 'notice to appear under section 1229(a),' and so does not trigger the stop-time rule.” (at 9)
“If the three words 'notice to appear' mean anything in this context, they must mean that, at a minimum, the Government has to provide noncitizens 'notice' of the information, i.e., the 'time' and 'place,' that would enable them 'to appear' at the removal hearing in the first place.” (at 12)
Factual background
Pereira, a Brazilian citizen, entered the United States in 2000 and overstayed his visa. In 2006, he was arrested for DUI, and DHS served him with a document titled 'Notice to Appear' that did not specify the date and time of his removal hearing, instead ordering him to appear 'on a date to be set at a time to be set.' More than a year later, the Immigration Court mailed a notice with the date and time to the wrong address. Pereira failed to appear and was ordered removed in absentia. In 2013, he was arrested for a minor traffic violation and detained, and the removal proceedings were reopened. He applied for cancellation of removal, arguing he had been continuously present for over 10 years. The Immigration Court and BIA concluded that the 2006 notice triggered the stop-time rule, making him ineligible.
Procedural history
Pereira was served with a notice to appear that omitted the date and time of his removal hearing. The Immigration Court held that the stop-time rule was triggered, making him ineligible for cancellation of removal. The BIA affirmed, and the First Circuit denied review, applying Chevron deference to the BIA's interpretation. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Remand instructions
The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.