Campos-Chaves v. Garland
602 U.S. 447
SCOTUS2024Background
- The U.S. government initiates removal (deportation) by serving a written "notice to appear" (NTA) under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1), which must specify the time and place of the hearing.
- If the time and place are later changed, a second "notice of hearing" under § 1229(a)(2) is required, specifying the new details.
- Aliens who fail to attend these hearings after receiving notice can be ordered removed in absentia, but such orders may be rescinded if the alien did not receive proper notice per § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii).
- In these consolidated cases, the initial NTAs did not provide the required time and place, but later notices did; each alien missed their hearing and was removed in absentia.
- The Fifth Circuit denied relief (Campos-Chaves), while the Ninth Circuit granted it (Singh, Mendez-Colín), leading to Supreme Court review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an in absentia removal order can be rescinded based on a defective initial NTA when a subsequent notice under § 1229(a)(2) was received for the missed hearing. | Receipt of a defective NTA (lacking time/place) lets an alien seek rescission, regardless of later notice. | Once an alien receives a proper notice under (2) for the hearing missed, rescission is not available. | Receipt of a proper § 1229(a)(2) notice for the missed hearing defeats rescission. |
| Whether a notice under § 1229(a)(2) is valid absent a compliant initial NTA under § 1229(a)(1). | Paragraph (2) notice is only valid if a compliant paragraph (1) NTA was given first. | A valid notice under (2) suffices even if the initial NTA was deficient; (2) can act independently. | § 1229(a)(2) notice can be valid even without a proper (1); what matters is notice for the missed hearing. |
| Statutory interpretation of “in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2)”. | “Or” is distributive, so any failure under either prong allows rescission. | “Or” is disjunctive: either notice for the missed hearing suffices, doesn't require both. | The disjunctive reading controls; only one required for the missed hearing. |
| Precedential effect of Pereira v. Sessions and Niz-Chavez v. Garland. | Prior cases require strict notice compliance and don’t allow separation of (1) and (2) notice requirements. | Prior cases were about the stop-time rule, not rescission of in absentia orders. | Previous cases addressed different statutory contexts; do not govern rescission here. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321 (headnotes do not constitute part of judicial opinions)
- Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 584 U.S. 79 (interpreting the ordinary, disjunctive use of "or" in statutes)
- Pereida v. Wilkinson, 592 U.S. 224 (explaining INA removal procedures)
- Pereira v. Sessions, 585 U.S. 198 (holding an NTA lacking time/place info is inadequate to trigger the stop-time rule)
- Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U.S. 155 (requiring that time/place be included in a single NTA document)
- Koons Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. v. Nigh, 543 U.S. 50 (using common sense in statutory interpretation)
- United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Assocs., Ltd., 484 U.S. 365 (statutory interpretation should harmonize with broader law)