These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
Viewing entries tagged
putative NTA
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that Homeland Security can “cure” a defective Notice to Appear (NTA) by moving the Immigration Judge to make written amendments to the NTA by adding the date and time of a future hearing.
The full text of Matter of R-T-P- can be found here:
The Supreme Court has determined that an Immigration Judge may order removed in absentia a non-citizen who received a Notice to Appear lacking the time and date of his first hearing, if the Immigration Court subsequently mailed a notice of hearing to the individual with that information.
The full text of Campos-Chaves v. Garland can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that the Department of Homeland Security cannot remedy a putative Notice to Appear (one missing the date and time of the initial hearing) by filing a Form I-261.
The full text of Matter of Aguilar Hernandez can be found here:
The Fourth Circuit has found that a Notice to Appear (NTA) missing the time and date of the first hearing precludes the entry of an in absentia removal order. This remains true even if the non-citizen moves from the address listed on the putative NTA and does not notify the agency.
The full text of Lazo-Gavidia v. Garland can be found here:
The Third Circuit has determined that an incomplete Notice to Appear (i.e., one lacking the date and time of a first hearing) precludes the entry of an in absentia removal order. “According to the Department, this disjunctive phrasing makes Madrid-Mancia’s defective NTA immaterial. Madrid-Mancia got a ‘Notice of Hearing,’ and that alone, it concludes, is enough for in absentia removal. That is not enough because § 1229a(b)(5)(A) always requires a complete NTA. And the Attorney General cannot cure defects in an NTA by sending out a self-styled ‘Notice of Hearing’ because announcing the time and date of a removal hearing for the first time is not a ‘change or postponement’ in the time or place.”
The full text of Madrid-Mancia v. Attorney General can be found here:
The Fifth Circuit has determined that a non-citizen who received an NTA with an address bearing a single typo, and who failed to correct the address with the court, is not entitled to written notice of his hearing, even if the typo was made by an immigration officer. The court was not persuaded that the non-citizen must have provided an accurate address or otherwise corrected the address by the fact that the bag and baggage letter was sent to the correct address.
The full text of Nivelo Cardenas v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-60778-CV0.pdf
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a Form I-122 initiating exclusion proceedings is not required to include the time and date of the first exclusion hearing pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Niz Chavez. In addition, an applicant in exclusion proceedings is not eligible to apply for cancellation of removal for non-lawful permanent residents.
The full text of Matter of J-L-L- can be found here:
The First Circuit has determined that an in absentia order must be rescinded when the Notice to Appear is missing the date of the first removal hearing. In so doing, the First Circuit disagreed with the Board of Immigration Appeals’ precedential decision in Matter of Laparra-Deleon.
The full text of Laparra-Deleon v. Garland can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a Notice to Appear missing the time and place of the first removal hearing presents a mandatory claim-processing rule violation. If a timely objection is brought (namely, before pleadings are taken), an immigration judge may give the Department of Homeland Security the opportunity to cure the defect before dismissing proceedings. If the objection is not timely raised, it is forfeited. The respondent need not show any prejudice resulting from the claim-processing rule violation.
The BIA declined to define how the DHS would remedy the defect. “The precise contours of permissible remedies are not before us at this time. DHS may decide it is best to request dismissal without prejudice and file a new notice to appear.”
The full text of Matter of Fernandes can be found here:
