Supreme Court Approves Two-Step Notice for Deportation Proceedings

On Friday, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling regarding the notification process used by the federal government for most immigration cases. In a 5-4 decision penned by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court determined that providing migrants with multiple notices to advise them of removal proceedings is acceptable.

Specifically, the Court held that removal orders could not be rescinded in absentia simply because the initial notice lacked accurate information on the time and location of immigration court hearings, as long as a second notice was sent with the required information.

The Matter & Ruling

The matter involved three non-citizens in the consolidated cases – Varinder Singh, Raul Daniel Mendez-Colín, and Moris Esmelis Campos-Chaves – who were each ordered removed in absentia after receiving initial notices to appear that were missing hearing time/location details. Follow-up notices with the missing information were later sent in each case.

The individuals argued the initial deficient notices should nullify the entire process, but the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government’s stance that as long as any notice contained the required time/place details, the in absentia orders remain valid.

The Ninth Circuit and Fifth Circuit’s Stand

The Ninth Circuit allowed Singh to challenge his in absentia removal order, noting that follow-up notices were sent to an old address. Similarly, the Court ruled favor of Mendez-Colín, finding that an initial deficient NTA did not comply with the law and rejecting the government’s argument that a notice of hearing served after a deficient NTA was valid.

The Fifth Circuit, on the other hand, upheld Campos-Chaves’ in absentia removal order because his follow-up notice of hearing contained the hearing location and time.

Precedent Rulings

In 2018, in Pereira v. Sessions, the justices ruled that NTAs must contain the time and location of court hearings to be considered valid under the stop-time rule, which stops the clock on accrued residency. In 2021, in Niz-Chavez v. Garland, they said all information must be contained in a single document and not in follow-up NTAs to trigger the stop-time rule.

Final Words

The ruling resolves a conflict between appellate rulings, upholds the two-step notification approach, and marks the third time in six years the Supreme Court has opined on notice requirements for these immigration proceedings. It signifies that removal orders will not be overturned in absentia due to technical deficiencies in the first initial notices as long as the migrants receive proper notice of hearing logistics through follow-up communication from authorities.