SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
Nos. 22–674 and 22–884
_________________
MORIS ESMELIS CAMPOS-CHAVES,
PETITIONER
22–674
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY
GENERAL
on writ of certiorari to the united states
court of appeals for the fifth circuit
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
PETITIONER
22–884
v.
VARINDER SINGH
on writ of certiorari to the united states
court of appeals for the ninth circuit
[June 14, 2024]
Justice Jackson, with whom Justice Sotomayor,
Justice Kagan, and Justice Gorsuch join, dissenting.
Although Congress allows the Government to seek
removal of noncitizens in absentia, it tempers that power with
process. Mandatory removal of a noncitizen who fails to attend a
scheduled removal hearing is available. 8 U. S. C.
§1229a(b)(5)(A). But to obtain such a removal order, the Government
must satisfy certain procedural prerequisites. See
ibid.
Relevant here, the Government must have provided the noncitizen
with specific forms of notice that contain specific information.
Ibid. (referencing §§1229(a)(1)–(2)). A noncitizen who has
been ordered removed in absentia but has not received the required
notice may seek to have the removal proceedings reopened and his
removal order rescinded. §1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii).
For years, the Government has failed to ensure
that one form of required notice—a “notice to appear” (hereinafter
NTA)—contains all the information the statute mandates. See
§1229(a)(1). Specifically, the Government has issued NTAs that lack
the exact time (and date) of a noncitizen’s removal hearing.
Contra, §1229(a)(1)(G)(i). This conspicuous omission has twice
before garnered our attention in cases concerning a noncitizen’s
plea for discretionary relief from removal—most recently, just
three Terms ago. See
Niz-Chavez v.
Garland, 593 U.S.
155 (2021);
Pereira v.
Sessions, 585 U.S. 198 (2018).
And twice over, this Court made clear that when the Government
issues an NTA, that document must contain the time-and-place
particulars that the statute requires.
Today’s cases arise because the Government
persisted with its practice of issuing facially defective NTAs in
the wake of our two prior pronouncements. But, apparently, the
third time is the charm, for the majority now finally blesses the
Government’s abject noncompliance with the statute’s unequivocal
command. The Court concludes that a noncitizen whose NTA does not
contain the time-and-date information that §1229(a)(1) requires has
no recourse from an in absentia removal order if the Government
subsequently provides some followup notice identifying the time and
date of the proceeding he missed.
Ante, at 2. But that
holding defies the plain text and context of the statute, sidesteps
our precedents, and upends the careful in absentia removal
framework Congress has crafted. So, I respectfully dissent.
I
Because a noncitizen may seek rescission only
if he “demonstrates that [he] did not receive notice in accord-
ance with paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a),”
§1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii), I agree with the majority that the central
question in this litigation is what it means to receive notice “in
accordance with paragraph (1) or (2),”
ibid. As the parties
frame the issue, the question is whether a noncitizen who has been
ordered removed in absentia can seek rescission if the Government
initially fails to identify a time and date for the removal
hearing, as paragraph (1) requires, but provides such information
at a later date, purportedly under paragraph (2).[
1] The majority reads “notice in accordance
with paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a),” §1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii),
to preclude a motion to reopen under these circumstances. In my
view, the majority’s reasoning is flawed and leads to the wrong
conclusion.
A
To understand why, one must first be
clear-eyed about the Government’s arguments, and also the
majority’s assertions. No one disputes that §1229(a) establishes a
mandatory process for the initiation of removal proceedings that
compels the Government to provide “written notice” to any
noncitizen it intends to remove as inadmissible or deportable.
Paragraph (1) states that “written notice (in
this section referred to as a ‘notice to appear’) shall be given in
person . . . or, if personal service is not practicable,
through service by mail.” §1229(a)(1). That provision then proceeds
to list not one or two but
seven categories of information
that must be “specif[ied]” in the NTA—including “[t]he acts or
conduct alleged to be in violation of [the] law,” §1229(a)(1)(C);
the fact that the noncitizen “may be represented by counsel” during
the removal proceedings, §1229(a)(1)(E); and “[t]he time and place
at which the proceedings will be held,” §1229(a)(1)(G)(i).
Paragraph (2) also requires the Government to
provide “a written notice” to removable noncitizens under specified
circumstances. §1229(a)(2). But, unlike paragraph (1), that
provision applies only “in the case of any change or postponement
in the time and place of such proceedings.”
Ibid. It
requires that “a written notice shall be given in person,” or
“through service by mail” if “personal service is not practicable.”
Ibid. Paragraph (2) further specifically identifies the two
categories of information that this particular notice must contain:
“(i) the new time or place of the proceedings, and (ii) the
consequences under section 1229a(b)(5) of this title of failing,
except under exceptional circumstances, to attend such
proceedings.”
Ibid.
So far, so good. Everyone agrees up to this
point. The dispute here arises because the Government insists that
its chronic failure to provide
complete NTAs under
§1229(a)(1)—
e.g., notices that contain time-and-date
information—is of no moment with respect to any subsequent in
absentia removal effort. So long as the Government provides the
noncitizen with a paragraph (2) notice of the time and date of a
removal hearing that the noncitizen subsequently misses, the
noncitizen cannot reopen his removal proceeding, the Government
claims.
Consider the cases before us. As the majority
has explained,
ante, at 3–4, each of the noncitizens here
received a statutorily deficient NTA—deficient because it was
missing the time and date of a removal proceeding. The NTAs the
Government provided instead stated that information as either “TBD”
or “to be set.” App. 10–12, 44–46, 53–54. Both the majority and the
Government acknowledge that such notices were deficient under the
statute. See
ante, at 13; Brief for Attorney General 26.
Each of the noncitizens later received one or more followup
documents that provided time-and-date information for a removal
hearing. Each of the noncitizens ultimately failed to attend a
hearing noticed by such a followup document and was ordered removed
in absentia. And each of the noncitizens then sought to have his in
absentia removal order rescinded on grounds of deficient
notice.
According to the Government, having received
notice of the time and date of their removal hearings through a
subsequent notice issued per paragraph (2), these noncitizens
cannot show that they “did not receive notice in accord- ance with
paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a).” §1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii).
Therefore, their removal proceedings cannot be reopened, or their
removal orders rescinded. Brief for Attorney General 16–17.
The majority agrees with this reading of the
statute, making three analytical moves to justify its conclusion.
One: It declares that, for purposes of §1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii), receipt
of
either an NTA
or a paragraph (2) notice can
suffice to defeat rescission of an in absentia removal order.
Ante, at 8–10. The majority similarly reads §1229a(b)(5)(A),
the in absentia removal provision, to allow a noncitizen to be
removed in absentia after he is provided with either form of
notice.
Ante, at 9–10. (But the majority also appears to
realize that, taken “[l]iterally,” this reading would allow a
noncitizen to be removed without recourse whenever he receives a
notice to appear, even if the Government later changes the hearing
date without telling him.
Ante, at 12.) So two: The majority
declares that the notice “that matters” is the one that informed
the noncitizen of the time and date of the hearing he missed.
Ibid.; see also
ante, at 11 (explaining that, under
§1229a(b)(5)(A), “ ‘the written notice’ ” the Government
must provide “is tied to the singular proceeding missed, and at
which the alien was ‘removed in absentia’ ”). Thus, three: The
majority concludes that, despite the Government’s provision of a
defective NTA, all the noncitizens here “received a proper
paragraph (2) notice for the hearings they missed and at which they
were ordered removed,” so “they cannot seek rescission of their in
absentia removal orders on the basis of defective notice.”
Ante, at 2; see also
ante, at 13.
As I explain in Parts I–B and I–C,
infra,
the primary problem with the majority’s statutory analysis is that
it unjustifiably cleaves the paragraph (2) notice from
paragraph (1)’s NTA requirement. In the majority’s view, the
Government can provide the statutorily required notice if it issues
either form of notice to a noncitizen, so long as the notice
the Government provided and the noncitizen received corresponds
with the hearing the noncitizen missed. See
ante, at 8–12.
But this maneuver misreads the plain text of the statute in at
least two critical respects: It ignores the fact that the statute
Congress wrote makes an NTA issued under paragraph (1)
indispensable, and, relatedly, it disregards the obviously
supporting and secondary role that paragraph (2) notices play with
respect to this statutory scheme.
B
The text of §1229(a) plainly refutes the
majority’s contention that
either an NTA under paragraph (1)
or a subsequent notice under paragraph (2) suffices because
the notice that “matters” for the purpose of in absentia removal is
whichever one corresponds to the missed hearing at which removal is
ordered.
Ante, at 12.
Paragraph (1) unequivocally states that “[i]n
removal proceedings under section 1229a of this title,” an NTA
“
shall be given” to the noncitizen. §1229(a)(1) (emphasis
added). An NTA is “the basis for commencing a grave legal
proceeding,” akin to “ ‘an indictment in a criminal case [or]
a complaint in a civil case.’ ”
Niz-Chavez, 593
U. S., at 163–164 (quoting Tr. of Oral Arg. in
Pereira
v.
Sessions, O. T. 2017, No. 17–459, p. 39; alteration in
original). Nothing in the text of §1229(a) betrays any hint that
paragraph (1)’s dictates are optional. And the Government does not
contest this; it acknowledges that an NTA under paragraph (1) of
§1229(a) is indispensable because this particular form of notice is
what initiates the removal process as a matter of law. Tr. of Oral
Arg. 49.
Furthermore, as I mentioned previously, a
paragraph (1) NTA
must contain certain specific information,
all of which Congress apparently thought important for a noncitizen
facing removal to have at the outset. §§1229(a)(1)(A)–(G). Much of
the required information is unique to NTAs issued per paragraph
(1). See,
e.
g., §§1229(a)(1)(C)–(D) (requiring notice
of the “acts or conduct alleged to be in violation of law” and the
“charges against the” noncitizen). Section 1229(a)(1) also treats
all of the required information equally—none of the listed elements
is more or less dispensable than any other.
To be sure, two pieces of information that
Congress has mandated be provided in an NTA—the time and place of a
removal proceeding, §1229(a)(1)(G)(i), and the consequences of
failing to appear, §1229(a)(1)(G)(ii)— overlap in kind with
information that must be provided in a paragraph (2) notice. But
that fact does not undermine the mandatory nature of paragraph
(1)’s requirements. We have already held that an NTA that does not
contain the requisite time-and-place information does not qualify
as an NTA at all.
Pereira, 585 U. S., at 202. Nor does
an NTA that is deficient in this way become retroactively
transformed into one that satisfies §1229(a)(1) if the Government
backfills that missing information using a later notice.
Niz-Chavez, 593 U. S., at 170. Instead, “the government
must issue a single statutorily compliant document.”
Id., at
163.
The indispensability of a complete NTA issued
under paragraph (1) has consequences for the reasoning the majority
puts forward here. It means that providing this particular form of
notice always and inevitably “matters” to the in absentia removal
process, notwithstanding the majority’s effort to hide that ball by
directing our attention to whichever notice “informed the alien of
the time and date of the hearing the alien missed, and at which he
was ordered removed”—as if
that is the notice that counts
under the statute.
Ante, at 12.
Put another way, whatever “notice in accordance
with paragraph (1) or (2)” might mean in §1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii), if
the Government has to issue an NTA that satisfies paragraph (1),
which it does, that language cannot mean the Government can
choose to provide
either a paragraph (1)
or
paragraph (2) notice and still be in compliance with the statute,
as the majority suggests. And without that “either/or” pillar, the
majority’s analysis collapses.
C
The majority’s reasoning further suggests that
the indispensability of an NTA per the statute is essentially
irrelevant because, for rescission purposes, an incomplete NTA can
be cured with a paragraph (2) notice, standing alone. By its
nature, however, a paragraph (2) notice cannot stand alone. This is
apparent on the face of the relevant statutory provisions, which
plainly establish, as the Ninth Circuit held, that “there can be no
valid notice under paragraph (2) without valid notice under
paragraph (1).” 24 F. 4th 1315, 1319 (2022) (case below).
Given this, even if we read §1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii)’s “paragraph (1) or
(2)” language to preclude rescission when noncitizens receive
either a statutorily compliant NTA under paragraph (1) or a valid
hearing notice under paragraph (2), the noncitizens here
did not
receive either one. The majority’s contrary conclusion rests on
a misconception of the nature of the notice that paragraph (2)
requires.
1
Analogizing to another common situation: A
paragraph (2) notice is the functional equivalent of a change
order. See 1A P. Bruner & P. O’Connor, Construction Law §4:1,
p. 282 (2016) (describing a “ ‘change’ ” in the
construction context as “ ‘an alteration to an existing
contract requirement concerning work that is already required to be
done’ ”). That is what the plain text of §1229(a)(2) calls
for, and it is how a paragraph (2) notice plainly operates.
Assuming that the Government has complied with its pre- existing
obligation under paragraph (1) to provide written notice of the
noncitizen’s duty to appear at removal proceedings at a particular
time and place, paragraph (2) requires the Government to issue a
supplemental notice “specifying . . . the
new time
or place of the proceedings” and reiterating the consequences of
failing to attend, if sometime after the issuance of the NTA the
time or place of the scheduled removal hearing changes. §1229(a)(2)
(emphasis added).
The analogy to change orders in the construction
context illuminates the unavoidably interconnected relationship
between a compliant NTA issued under paragraph (1) and the notice
the Government must provide under paragraph (2). Ask any
homebuilder. A customer who wants a new den, for example, submits a
written request to the builder that specifies the details of her
order—
e.g., construct a 12- by 12-foot room with
two 48-inch fixed picture windows at a designated spot on the back
of her house. Those are the indispensable terms of the mandate.
But, if the customer later changes her mind about some aspect of
this project—say, she wants the windows moved, or she wants the
room enlarged to 16 by 16 feet—she submits a written change order
notifying the builder of those particular alterations. The change
order supplements the original request; it does not entirely
supplant it. And the change order supersedes only the particular
terms of the initial directive that have been changed.
Consequently, the change order is only cognizable in relation to
what came before.
So it is here. As the majority concedes,
Congress has mandated that the Government, first, provide
noncitizens with a written NTA that specifically and
comprehensively lists the terms of the removal proceeding mandate.
That notice has to include the time and place of the noticed
removal proceeding. §1229(a)(1)(G)(i). Congress has also authorized
the Government to make certain adjustments to that notice under
specified circumstances, but only if the Government similarly
provides a written notice of those altered terms. That is the work
of a notice issued under paragraph (2). And, just as in the
construction context, a paragraph (2) notice of the changed time or
place has no effect independent of the original directive. A notice
of change under paragraph (2) issues only if there is a changed
circumstance, and it exists merely to update the terms that were
previously set.
2
Setting aside analogous circumstances and
using a dictionary to bear down on the words Congress used in
§1229(a)(2) leads to the same result. As a reminder, paragraph (2)
provides that “[i]n removal proceedings . . . , in the
case of any
change or postponement in the time and place of
such proceedings, . . . a written notice shall be given
in person” to the noncitizen, and that notice must “specif[y]
. . . the
new time or place of the proceedings”
and the consequences of failing to attend. §§1229(a)(2)(A)(i)–(ii)
(emphasis added).
Homing in on the word “change,” the majority
first accuses the noncitizens of “tak[ing] too narrow a reading of
th[at] term,” since “change” can mean simply “ ‘to
replace,’ ” “ ‘to switch,’ ” “to ‘alter,’ or to
‘modify.’ ”
Ante, at 14. As further support for this
broad interpretation of change, the majority points to “any”—the
provision says “any change”—which, according to the majority,
suggests that Congress contemplated that the paragraph (1) NTA
could omit the time and place of the removal proceeding, with the
paragraph (2) notice “chang[ing]” that “TBD” to the actual time and
place.
Ibid.
But the modifier “any” does not justify the
majority’s overbroad reading of “change or postponement” in
§1229(a)(2)(A). It is true that “the word ‘any’ has ‘an expansive
meaning.’ ”
Patel v.
Garland, 596 U.S. 328, 338
(2022) (quoting
Babb v.
Wilkie, 589 U.S. 399, 405, n.
2 (2020)). But “any” does work under the noncitizens’ reading of
paragraph (2), too. It helps cover all potential changes to the
pre-existing time and place that paragraph (1) requires the
Government to designate. Especially when one considers the entire
operative phrase—“any change or postponement in the time and place
of such proceedings”—“any change” makes clear that notice must also
issue when a hearing time is moved up, or when a venue is switched
from one location to another.
In any event, the majority does not, and cannot,
dispute that an ordinary meaning of “change” is “the action of
replacing something with something else of the same kind or with
something that serves as a substitute.” Webster’s Third New
International Dictionary 374 (1993). The notice provisions at issue
here reflect that kind of substitution on their face, because
§1229(a) mandates in paragraph (1) that the Government provide
noncitizens with a complete NTA (with the time and place for the
removal proceeding included)
at the outset. The paragraph
(2) notice only comes into play “in the case of any change
. . . in the time and place of such proceedings.”
§1229(a)(2)(A). Thus, among the various definitional possibilities
the majority offers, it is this definition that makes the most
sense of this particular statute. See
Abramski v.
United
States,
573 U.S.
169, 179, n. 6 (2014) (“[C]ourt[s] should not interpret
each word in a statute with blinders on, refusing to look at the
word’s function within the broader statutory context”).
In short, use of the word “change” in the
context of a statute that first requires something—
e.g., the
setting of a time and place—presumes the earlier existence of that
thing to be swapped out. The ordinary meaning of “postponement,”
too, requires the previous selection of a particular date or time.
See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, at 1773 (defining
“postpone” as “to hold back to a later time”). And the word “new”
runs in the same circles. “New” can mean “other than the former or
old.”
Id., at 1522. So a “new” time likewise implies the
earlier existence of an “old” time.
Thus, dictionary definitions indicate that in
order for a notice issued under paragraph (2) to “change” the time
or place of a proceeding to a “new” time or place, there must have
been an old time or place to begin with. If the NTA did not comply
with the statute in this way, then it is impossible for paragraph
(2) notice to comply, either.
3
Even so, definitions alone often “do not equip
us to resolve” a case.
Kucana v.
Holder,
558 U.S.
233, 245 (2010). We have long understood that words with
“ ‘many dictionary definitions . . . must draw
[their] meaning[s] from . . . context.’ ”
Ibid. (quoting
Ardestani v.
INS,
502 U.S.
129, 135 (1991)). “[S]tatutes must be read as a whole,” and,
here, notice under paragraph (2) “does not exist in a vacuum.”
Guam v.
United States, 593 U.S. 310, 316 (2021)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
That brings me back to where I started—with the
observation that, when read in context, paragraph (2) requires a
preceding written notice (like a standard change order does) and
thus presupposes a compliant NTA. Not to belabor the point, but it
bears noting that
all the relevant context clues support
this reading of the statute.
For example, notice under paragraph (2) follows
the required NTA under paragraph (1) in the text of the statute.
See §1229(a). This ordering suggests the central role of NTAs in
Congress’s removal scheme, with paragraph (2) notices playing only
a supporting part. Moreover, while paragraph (2) notices can and do
work together with NTAs to convey essential information to
noncitizens, they are hardly a team of equals. Also, a paragraph
(2) notice, which contains far less content than an NTA, is
patently supplemental insofar as it may not ever need to be issued.
See §1229(a)(2)(A).
The majority errs in interpreting “notice in
accordance with paragraph (1) or (2),” §1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii), by
treating “or” as a standard disjunctive construct. See
ante,
at 8–9. That might generally be so. But here, the word “or” simply
cannot be taken to mean that
either notice in accordance
with paragraph (1)
or in accordance with paragraph (2)
suffices under the statute because those two notices are by no
means equivalent alternatives, as I have explained.[
2]
It is clear on the face of this statute, then,
that a paragraph (2) notice merely alters information that Congress
has required be given previously, and, “especially when properly
read in sequence as integral parts of a whole,” the statute plainly
“anticipates a predicate”
Guam, 593 U. S., at 317
(internal quotation marks omitted). As its “text and place within
[the] comprehensive statutory scheme” show,
id., at 320, a
notice under paragraph (2) cannot exist in the absence of a
compliant NTA. The statute simply does not contemplate it.
II
Our precedents in
Pereira and
Niz-Chavez addressed the relevant notice provisions and what
they require of the Government, yet the majority barely pauses to
acknowledge this. Both
Pereira and
Niz-Chavez
concerned noncitizens’ eligibility for a form of discretionary
relief called cancellation of removal and the operation of the
so-called stop-time rule. See §§1229b(b)(1), (d)(1)(A). Noncitizens
who have accrued 10 years of continuous physical presence in the
United States may be eligible for cancellation of removal, but
under the stop-time rule, that period of continuous physical
presence ends when the noncitizen “is served a notice to appear
under section 1229(a).”
Ibid. Then as now, the Government
had failed to send noncitizens NTAs that included time-and-place
information as §1229(a)(1) requires.
In
Pereira, we held that “[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 stop-time rule.” 585 U. S., at
202. In
Niz-Chavez, we rejected the Government’s view that a
deficient paragraph (1) NTA is “complete and the stop-time rule
kicks in whenever [the Government] finishes delivering all the
statutorily prescribed information.” 593 U. S., at 160.
Rather, we said, the Government needs to supply noncitizens with a
single, fully compliant NTA if it wishes to take advantage of the
stop-time rule.
Id., at 172.
In both of those cases, we interpreted the
notice regime just as the noncitizens do here. As the majority
acknowledges,
ante, at 15, we specifically observed in
Pereira that, “[b]y allowing for a ‘change or postponement’
of the proceedings to a ‘new time or place,’ paragraph (2) presumes
that the Government has already served a ‘notice to appear under
section 1229(a)’ that specified a time and place as required by
§1229(a)(1)(G)(i).” 585 U. S., at 210. “Otherwise,” we said,
“there would be no time or place to ‘change or postpone.’ ”
Ibid. (alteration omitted). We thought then that the
Government could only “exercise that statutory authority
after it has served a notice to appear specifying the time
and place of the removal proceedings.”
Id., at 218 (emphasis
added).
In
Niz-Chavez, we doubled down. We
recognized that “Congress expressly contemplated [the] possibility”
that the Government would “issu[e] notices to appear with all the
information §1229(a)(1) requires—and then amen[d] the time or place
information if circumstances required it” using §1229(a)(2). 593
U. S., at 159. We explained that “
once the government
serves a compliant notice to appear, [the statute] permits it
to send a
supplemental notice amending the time and place of
an alien’s hearing if logistics require a change.”
Id., at
170 (emphasis added). We also suggested that an alternative reading
would effectively nullify Congress’s work to change the notice
regime from one permitting the Government to specify the time and
place for a noncitizen’s hearing “ ‘in the order to show cause
or otherwise,’ ” to one where “time and place
information must be included in a notice to appear, not ‘or
otherwise.’ ”
Id., at 167 (quoting §1252b(a)(2)(A)
(1994 ed.); emphasis in original). That point is as salient now as
it was then.
Our statements in
Pereira and
Niz-Chavez demonstrate that the Court twice before thought
obvious the reading of the statute the noncitizens here propose.
Yet the majority now cries dicta. The Court says the meaning of
§1229(a)(2) was not at issue in
Pereira, which concerned the
“ ‘narrow question’ ” of the operation of the stop-time
rule.
Ante, at 15. To be sure, “we are not necessarily bound
by dicta should more complete argument demonstrate that the dicta
is not correct.”
Kirtsaeng v.
John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.,
568 U.S.
519, 548 (2013). Here, however, “more complete argument” has
served only to confirm our previous statements.
The argument the majority accepts today brushes
aside what we said in
Pereira without explaining why our
statements—which are due a modicum of respect in any event, see
Cohens v.
Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 399 (1821)—were
mistaken. Addressing
Niz-Chavez in only a footnote, the
majority maintains that our observation that paragraph (2) notices
allow the Government to change a “chosen time and place in the NTA
. . . remains true even if there are other instances in
which paragraph (2) notices may issue.”
Ante, at 16,
n. 1. But that assertion simply fails to engage with the
antecedent point—that Congress expected the Government to issue
compliant NTAs
first—and the implications it has for the
interpretation of §1229(a)(2).
And, in the end, we were not wrong. Under the
uncomplicated statutory reading that
Pereira and
Niz-Chavez endorsed, the noncitizens here are not precluded
from seeking rescission of their in absentia removal orders,
because §1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii) permits “a motion to reopen [removal
proceedings] filed at any time” if the noncitizen can demonstrate
that he “did not receive notice in accordance with paragraph (1) or
(2)” of §1229(a). Neither form of notice was provided under the
circumstances presented here. As all agree, none of the noncitizens
ever received a notice in accordance with paragraph (1). See
Pereira, 585 U. S., at 202. And because a paragraph (2)
notice presumes a statutorily compliant paragraph (1) notice, none
of the noncitizens received notice in accordance with paragraph
(2), either. That is true no matter how many would-be paragraph
(2) notices the Government sent.[
3]
III
One final flaw bears mentioning. By snipping
the thread that connects the notices Congress required in
paragraphs (1) and (2) of §1229(a), today’s decision mangles
the broader statutory scheme.
A
The long and short of this critique is that
reading the statute in the way the majority does fails to fully
account for Congress’s objectives when it comes to removal
procedures, which have long included ensuring that noncitizens
facing removal receive notice. The Government’s statutory
obligation to provide notice in the removal context has been a
crucial aspect of federal immigration policy since at least the
early 1950s. To this end, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
of 1952 specifically provided that a noncitizen must be “given a
reasonable opportunity to be present at [the] proceeding” in which
his deportability or removability is to be determined. §242(b),
66Stat. 209, codified at 8 U. S. C. §1252(b) (1952 ed.).
With respect to in absentia removal, the INA further provided that
if the noncitizen “without reasonable cause fail[ed] or refuse[d]
to attend or remain in attendance,” a “special inquiry officer”
could “proceed to a determination in like manner as if the alien
were present.”
Ibid.
Notably, at that time, an immigration officer’s
decision to remove a noncitizen in absentia was discretionary.
Ibid. In 1990, however, Congress amended the INA to provide,
in certain circumstances, for mandatory in absentia deportation of
noncitizens who failed to appear for their proceedings. See
Immigration Act of 1990, §545(a), 104Stat. 5061–5065, codified at 8
U. S. C. §1252b(c)(1) (1994 ed.). Nonetheless, the
Government still routinely encountered “[p]rocedural [i]ssues” in
its efforts to remove inadmissible or deportable noncitizens.
H. R. Rep. No. 104–469, pt. 1, p. 122 (1996). Those issues
included deportable or inadmissible noncitizens sometimes
“frustrat[ing] removal through taking advantage of certain
procedural loopholes” in the process. For example, some noncitizens
facing removal would “simply fail to appear for their deportation
hearing,” and “some immigration judges . . . decline[d]
to exercise their authority to order an alien deported in absentia”
due to “lapses (perceived or genuine) in the procedures for
notifying aliens of deportation proceedings.”
Ibid.[
4]
Congress endeavored to address these kinds of
problems, among other things, when it established the mandatory in
absentia removal provisions that govern these cases as part of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
(IIRIRA) of 1996. See §304(a), 110Stat. 3009–587 to 3009–590; see
also 8 U. S. C. §§1229(a), 1229a. Notably, however,
Congress did not absolve the Government of its obligation to
provide notice of removal proceedings. Nor did it make receipt of
notice irrelevant to whether a noncitizen who does not show up to
his hearing can later contest his removal. To the contrary, notice
features prominently in IIRIRA’s in absentia removal process—it is
specifically mentioned in four of the five statutory subdivisions
that constitute Congress’s in absentia mandatory removal
directives.[
5] And, rather than
devising a process in which a noncitizen who misses his hearing
must be removed regardless, Congress has made clear that the
consequences for failing to appear for scheduled removal
proceedings can turn on whether notice was provided, or received,
under the terms of the statute. See,
e.
g.,
§1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii).
B
The resulting in absentia removal scheme
constitutes a balancing of interests and obligations that is well
within Congress’s policy prerogatives. Congress has also clearly
expressed its intent in this regard, for when paragraphs (1) and
(2) of §1229(a) are read naturally, in context, and with an
understanding of Congress’s objectives, the entire scheme flows
seamlessly.
To recap: If the Government issues, and the
noncitizen receives, the statutorily required notice—
i.e.,
the notice mandated by paragraph (1) of §1229(a), or, when
necessary, by paragraphs (1) and (2)—yet the noncitizen fails to
appear at the scheduled removal proceeding, she is subject to a
mandatory, nonrescindable removal order. But if the Government
fails to provide notice in accordance with the statute, the in
absentia removal order is subject to reconsideration, meaning that,
upon request, the noncitizen’s removal proceedings may be
reopened.[
6]
This symmetry of notice-related mandates and
accountability incentivizes both noncitizens and the Government to
follow Congress’s dictates. It also facilitates efficient removal
of deportable and inadmissible noncitizens
while
simultaneously preserving the fairness and procedural integrity
of the removal process in individual cases. The majority’s
interpretation, which basically amounts to a refusal to accept
these policy choices, supplants this dual objective.
Indeed, and perhaps most concerning, under the
majority’s reading of the statutory provisions at issue here,
Congress’s goals are plainly thwarted, for a noncitizen may be
removed in absentia even if the Government fails to provide him
with information that complies in both form and substance with
Congress’s commands. The removal scheme’s orderly progression
actually breaks down when the Government fails, in systemic
fashion, to send statutorily compliant NTAs. And for years, that is
exactly what has happened, because the NTAs that the Government
routinely issued lacked the time, date, or place of a noncitizen’s
initial removal hearing. Brief for Attorney General 50.
Rather than just complying with §1229(a)’s
notice requirements, the Government now urges us to interpret
§1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii) to preclude reopening of certain in absentia
removal proceedings, out of a worry that “hundreds of thousands” of
individuals who have “been ordered removed in absentia would be
able to undo those orders” under the noncitizens’ reading of the
statute.
Ibid. But this is a problem of the Government’s own
making. And it is completely within the Government’s power to fix.
At the very least, it seems wildly counterintuitive for this Court
to adopt the Government’s permissive reading of the statute— in
contravention of its plain text—so as to help the Government avoid
the prescribed consequences of its chronic noncompliance with
Congress’s mandates.
There is also no rational limiting principle.
Today, the Government opts to omit from the NTA the time and date
of the removal proceeding. The majority now says that’s no
problem—the Government may nevertheless seek and receive binding in
absentia removal so long as the noncitizen received a paragraph (2)
notice that filled in the blanks. See
ante, at 10–11, 13.
But what prevents the Government from removing a noncitizen whose
notice to appear is deficient in other critical respects? The “next
chapter in the same story,”
Niz-Chavez, 593 U. S., at
159, might involve a noncitizen whose notice to appear also failed
to inform her that she can be represented by counsel in removal
proceedings. See §1229(a)(1)(E). That information is required only
in paragraph (1) notices, not paragraph (2) notices. By the
majority’s logic, a noncitizen in that position could be ordered
removed in absentia and barred from seeking rescission of her order
without ever being informed of her ability to be represented by an
attorney. Even the Government has conceded that nothing in its
reading of the statute prevents that outcome. See Tr. of Oral Arg.
17–21, 50–51.
One can imagine other troubling scenarios; for
example, a notice to appear that omits the charges against a
noncitizen. See §1229(a)(1)(D). That information, too, is required
only in a paragraph (1) notice. If a noncitizen receives such a
defective NTA followed by a purported paragraph (2) notice and
fails to attend her hearing, may she be removed in absentia having
never learned the charges against her? The Government assures us
that statutory safeguards prevent
that outcome at the very
least. It says that in those circumstances, it could not satisfy
its burden of proving to an immigration judge by “ ‘clear,
unequivocal, and convincing evidence’ ” that the noncitizen is
removable. Reply Brief 23 (quoting §1229a(b)(5)(A)). But what if
the removal hearing is held in absentia, and the Government simply
informs the immigration judge of the charges against the noncitizen
at that time? Would it matter that the absent noncitizen was kept
completely in the dark about the charges? The majority gives no
answer, other than that noncitizens “could have raised [this issue]
in a hearing that they chose to skip.”
Ante, at 16.
The majority waves away these legitimate
concerns about how far the Government can go in deviating from what
§1229(a)(1) or (2) requires, by blithely declaring that today’s
decision does not “free” the Government of its obligation to
provide a compliant NTA.
Ibid. But it is hard to square that
statement with what is actually happening on the ground. The
Government has already flouted its NTA obligation for years now.
Though the Court might not be expressly authorizing this state of
affairs, today’s blunting of the statutory consequence for the
Government’s systemic failure to comply with §1229(a) removes any
possible incentive for the Government to change course now.
Finally, the majority says that a noncitizen who
receives a noncompliant NTA followed by a paragraph (2) notice can
always “attend the hearing” to protest the deficient NTA.
Ibid. That is entirely beside the point. Congress put the
burden on the Government to send complete NTAs to noncitizens
facing removal every time it initiates a removal proceeding.
Instead of requiring the Government to shoulder that burden, the
majority effectively shifts it onto the noncitizens—individuals
perhaps unfamiliar with this country and its laws—tasking them with
the responsibility of addressing the Government’s mistakes. That is
not the statute Congress wrote.
* * *
When the Government issues an NTA under
paragraph (1) that lacks time and date information but follows
up with a notice under paragraph (2) that sets the time and date of
a removal hearing that the noncitizen subsequently misses, I fully
understand the instinct to conclude that the Government’s initial
lack of compliance was insignificant. Some might even think it
unfair that noncitizens could seek rescission of their removal
orders based on an initial notice that seems only
technically defective, given the Government’s subsequent
action. My response to them is simple: Congress thought otherwise.
The statute it wrote specifically establishes the what, when, and
how of the notice that is due to noncitizens facing removal. The
statute also allows noncitizens who have been ordered removed in
absentia to seek rescission of the removal order if the required
notice is not received. I can no more judge that policy decision
than I can change it. Today, the Court makes the unfortunate
mistake of doing both.