Pereira v. Sessions, Att'y Gen.
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 21, 2018 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Decided
- June 21, 2018
- Term
- October Term 2017
- Vote
- 8–1
- Majority author
- Justice Sotomayor
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court. Nonpermanent residents, like petitioner here, who are subject to removal proceedings and have accrued 10 years of continuous physical presence in the United States, may be eligible for a form of discretionary relief known as cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). Under the so-called "stop-time rule" set forth in § 1229b(d)(1)(A), however, that period of continuous physical presence is "deemed to end ... when the alien is served a notice to appear under section 1229(a)." Section 1229(a), in turn, provides that the Government shall serve noncitizens in removal proceedings with "written notice (in this section referred to as a 'notice to appear') ... specifying" several required pieces of information, including "[t]he time and place at which the [removal] proceedings will be held." § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i). The narrow question in this case lies at the intersection of those statutory provisions. If the Government serves a noncitizen with a document that is labeled "notice to appear," but the document fails to specify either the time or place of the removal proceedings, does it trigger the stop-time rule? 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…
Excerpt of a 37,582-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.