On June 14, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a pivotal decision in Campos-Chaves v. Garland, 602 U.S. ___ (2024). The Court held that a noncitizen who receives proper notice for their removal hearing, despite initially being served with a defective Notice to Appear (NTA) that did not specify the date and time of their hearing, cannot seek rescission of their in absentia removal order under section 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). This decision has significant implications for noncitizens and immigration law more broadly.
Background on NTAs and In Absentia Removal Orders
A Notice to Appear (NTA) is the document that initiates removal proceedings against a noncitizen. According to 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a), an NTA must specify, among other details, the nature of the proceedings, the legal authority under which they are conducted, and the date and location of the hearing.
An in absentia removal order is issued when a noncitizen fails to appear at their removal hearing without sufficient cause, resulting in deportation without further proceedings. There is no appeal from such an order, but it can be rescinded by an Immigration Judge upon the filing of a motion to reopen if the noncitizen can show that they did not receive proper notice of the hearing.
The Campos-Chaves Decision
In Campos-Chaves v. Garland, the central issue was the adequacy of NTAs lacking the date and time of the hearing. In a 5-4 decision, Justice Alito, writing for the majority, argued that the primary purpose of the NTA is to inform the noncitizen of their obligation to attend their hearing. The court concluded that as long as the noncitizen eventually receives proper notice of the hearing, an initial NTA does not entitle the noncitizen to rescission of an in absentia removal order where proper notice of the hearing was ultimately given.
Comparisons with Previous Decisions
The Court’s decision in Campos-Chaves stands in contrast to its earlier rulings in Pereira v. Sessions, 585 U. S. 198 (2018), and Niz-Chavez v. Garland, which emphasized the necessity of a single, complete NTA to initiate removal proceedings. The shift in focus from the initial adequacy of an NTA to the remedial effect of subsequent notices represents a significant departure from these precedents. Justice Sotomayor’s dissent argued that this decision undermines the clear statutory requirement for NTAs established in Pereira and Niz-Chavez, allowing the government to bypass the strict notice requirements set forth in those precedents and weakening the protections meant to ensure noncitizens are properly informed of their legal obligations.
Broader Implications
The Campos-Chaves decision has significant implications for noncitizens facing removal proceedings. Following this ruling, it will be harder to contest in absentia removal orders based on defective NTAs. Thus, this decision highlights the need for noncitizens to receive and respond to all notices regarding removal proceedings and underscores the need for comprehensive legal representation to navigate the complexities of removal proceedings.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Campos-Chaves v. Garland marks a significant shift in immigration law regarding in absentia removal orders. By ruling that subsequent proper notices can cure initial NTA defects, the Court has set a precedent that will affect many removal proceedings moving forward. Noncitizens and their legal representatives must remain vigilant in responding to notices and attending hearings to protect their rights and opportunities for relief under the law.
—
Please note: This overview is intended for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you or someone you know is facing immigration-related challenges, we strongly recommend reaching out to an experienced immigration attorney for guidance and support.
