Campos-Chaves v. Garland
Headline: Court limits rescission of in absentia removal orders, ruling later paragraph (2) hearing notices that specify time and place prevent reopening, making it harder for noncitizens to undo removal orders after missed hearings.
Holding:
- Makes it harder for immigrants to undo in absentia removal orders after missing hearings.
- Treats later hearing notices as sufficient even when initial NTA lacked time and place.
- Limits grounds to reopen removal proceedings based on defective initial NTAs.
Summary
Background
Three immigrants — Moris Esmelis Campos‑Chaves, Varinder Singh, and Raul Daniel Mendez‑Colín — each received an initial notice to appear (an NTA) that did not give a specific time or date for removal hearings. The Government later mailed a separate written notice under §1229(a)(2) that listed the specific time and place for a hearing. Each person missed the hearing, was ordered removed in absentia, and later sought to rescind that removal on the ground that the original NTA was defective. The cases were consolidated from the Fifth and Ninth Circuits.
Reasoning
The Court focused on whether an alien “did not receive notice in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2)” of §1229(a). It read the statute to mean that a single notice about the hearing that the person actually missed is what matters. The Court explained that paragraph (2) notice — when it specifies the new time and place — supersedes the earlier NTA for the purposes of the missed hearing. Because each immigrant received a paragraph (2) notice that gave the time and place of the hearing they missed, the Court held they cannot obtain rescission under §1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii).
Real world impact
The decision means people ordered removed in absentia who received later written hearing notices with time and place cannot reopen removal based on a defective earlier NTA. The ruling resolves a split among courts below and clarifies that paragraph (2) notices can be dispositive when they notify the person of the specific hearing date. This opinion carries the force of the Court’s ruling and will affect similar pending and future cases.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Jackson, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch, dissented, arguing the statute presumes a proper paragraph (1) NTA and that allowing paragraph (2) notices to substitute weakens Congress’s notice protections.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?