Pereira v. Sessions

Background

Pereira is a Brazilian man who came to the United States in 2000, overstayed his visa, and was later charged with deportability. In 2006 DHS served him a document labeled “notice to appear” that listed the charges but did not specify the date or time of his first removal hearing. A later court notice with a date was mailed to the wrong address and returned undeliverable, and an in‑absentia removal order followed. Proceedings were reopened in 2013 and Pereira sought cancellation of removal based on more than ten years of continuous presence.

Reasoning

The key legal question was whether a notice that omits the time or place of a hearing can stop the ten‑year clock that matters for cancellation of removal. The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Sotomayor, held that the stop‑time rule refers to a notice “under §1229(a),” and that §1229(a) defines a notice to appear as a written notice that specifies at least the time and place of proceedings. The Court relied on the statute’s text, the surrounding provisions, and common sense, and it reversed lower courts that had deferred to the agency.

Real world impact

The ruling means DHS cannot treat a bare notice missing hearing time or place as automatically ending eligibility for the ten‑year relief. Cases where initial notices lacked that information must be reconsidered by lower courts, and some noncitizens may regain eligibility for cancellation of removal.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Kennedy wrote a separate note urging caution about agency deference, and Justice Alito dissented, arguing the agency’s reading was permissible under Chevron and warning about practical scheduling problems if the government must always include a firm date.