The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that three illegal immigrants challenging orders to be removed from the United States were not given proper notice of their deportation hearings in federal immigration court.
Illegal immigrants Esmeris Campos Chavez, Varinder Singh, and Raul Daniel Mendez Colin were ordered deported in default after failing to appear before a federal immigration judge. In each case, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sent a Notice to Appear (NTA) to the immigration court but did not specify a date, time, or location for the hearing.
But then the Department of Justice sent each of the illegal immigrants a notice of hearing, instructing them when and where to appear before a federal immigration judge. But in each case, the men failed to show up for their court hearings and were ordered deported from the United States in default.
Each of the illegal immigrants then filed suit to vacate the deportation orders, arguing that the Department of Justice had not provided them with sufficient notice of their immigration hearings. The Fifth Circuit dismissed one petition, but the Ninth Circuit upheld the other two.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion on Friday, ruling that because the Justice Department had given each of the undocumented immigrants proper notice of their immigration hearings, they could not seek to have their deportation orders overturned.
All three, Campos Chavez, Singh, and Mendez Colin, received “notice pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2)” of the missed hearings and therefore the default removal orders cannot be set aside for that reason. The government acknowledges that none of them received a complete NTA. However, each received a “notice pursuant to paragraph … (2)” and each notice met all the requirements of notice under that provision. After receiving their incomplete NTAs, each alien was notified of the specific time and place of removal proceedings. These notices indicated “new” times, which were thereby “changed.”[d]The date, time and place of removal proceedings within the meaning of § 1229(a)(2). [Emphasis added]
…
If the government intends to deport an alien, it must notify the alien of the date, time and place of the removal hearing. Under 8 U.S.C. §1229(a), there are two types of notice: a notice to appear under paragraph (1) and a “notice of hearing” under paragraph (2) “in the event of a change or postponement of the date and place of the removal hearing.” If an alien receives such notice but fails to appear at the removal hearing, he or she may be “ordered removed in default” if the government can provide certain evidence. §1229a(b)(5)(A). However, an alien may seek the cancellation of the order if the alien can demonstrate that he or she “did not receive a notice pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2).” [§1229(a)]. “ [Emphasis added]
In those cases we granted leave to appeal to consider what is meant by “certification.”[e] § 1229a(b) (5)(C)(ii); 600 U.S. ___ (2023). The aliens in each of these cases argue that they may seek revocation because they did not receive a notice to appear pursuant to paragraph (1). We hold that to vacate an order of removal in default for an alien’s “failure to receive notice pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2),” the alien must prove that he or she did not receive notice under either paragraph of the hearing at which the order of removal in default was issued. Because the aliens in these cases received removal orders in default hearings, they were served with proper paragraph (2) notice and cannot seek to have the default removal orders set aside. Based on incomplete notice under § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). [Emphasis added]
Alito was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh and Barrett. Justice Jackson dissented, and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Gorsuch joined.
This incident Campos Chavez vs. Garland, No. 22-674 In the Supreme Court of the United States.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter. here.
