Campos-Chaves v. Garland

• Justices
  • 
    CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS
  • ASSOCIATE JUSTICES
    • SAMUEL ALITO
    • AMY CONEY BARRETT
    • NEIL GORSUCH
    • KETANJI BROWN JACKSON
    • ELENA KAGAN
    • BRETT KAVANAUGH
    • SONIA SOTOMAYOR
    • CLARENCE THOMAS
• CASES BY TERM
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2026-2027
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2025-2026
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2024-2025
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2023-2024
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2022-2023
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2021-2022
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2019-2020
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2018-2019
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2017-2018
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2016-2017
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2015-2016
  • All earlier cases
• HISTORY OF THE COURT
  • Cases by chief justice
  • Cases by decade
• Recent vacancies
  • 2022 VACANCY AND JACKSON CONFIRMATION
  • 2020 VACANCY AND BARRETT CONFIRMATION
  • 2018 VACANCY AND KAVANAUGH CONFIRMATION
  • 2017 VACANCY AND GORSUCH CONFIRMATION

Campos-Chaves v. Garland
Term: 2023
Important Dates
Argued: January 8, 2024 Decided: June 14, 2024
Outcome
Affirmed
Vote
5-4
Majority
Samuel Alito • Clarence Thomas • Chief Justice John Roberts • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett
Dissenting
Ketanji Brown Jackson • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch

Campos-Chaves v. Garland is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 14, 2024, during the court's October 2023-2024 term. The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on January 8, 2024. It was consolidated with Garland v. Singh.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision, holding, "Because each of the aliens in this case received a proper §1229(a)(2) notice for the hearings they missed and at which they were ordered removed, they cannot seek rescission of their in absentia removal orders on the basis of defective notice under §1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). Pp 7–16." Justice Samuel Alito delivered the court's majority opinion. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Neil Gorsuch. Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS

The issue: The case concerned the notification requirements for deportation or removal proceedings against non-citizens under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a), initiation of removal proceedings. Click here to learn more about the case's background.

The questions presented: "If the government serves an initial notice document that does not include the 'time and place' of proceedings, followed by an additional document containing that information, has the government provided notice 'required under' and 'in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a)' such that an immigration court must enter a removal order in absentia and deny a noncitizen's request to rescind that order?"

The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision.

Campos-Chaves v. Garland came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

Garland v. Singh came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Click here to review the lower court's opinion.

Timeline

The following timeline details key events in Campos-Chaves v. Garland:

• June 14, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision.
• January 8, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
• June 30, 2023: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear consolidated arguments in the case along with Garland v. Singh.
• January 18, 2023: Moris Esmelis Campos-Chaves, the petitioner, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
• December 1, 2022: The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied the petitions for rehearing and review.

The following timeline details key events in Garland v. Singh:

• June 14, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision.
• January 8, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
• June 30, 2023: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear consolidated arguments in the case along with Campos-Chaves v. Garland.
• March 10, 2023: The petitioner Moris Esmelis Campos-Chaves appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court; the petition for a writ of certiorari included the case Garland v. Singh.
• February 4, 2022: The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings.

Background

Campos-Chaves v. Garland

Salvadoran citizen Moris Campos-Chaves entered the United States illegally on January 24, 2005, in Laredo, Texas. On February 10, 2005, the U.S. government filed a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) in immigration court against Campos-Chaves in order to initiate removal proceedings, also known as deportation, under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), Inadmissable aliens. Campos-Chaves did not appear at the proceedings, but was still ordered to be deported in absentia.

On appeal, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a per curiam ruling denying Campos-Chaves' petitions for rehearing and review:

“	On September 18, 2018, petitioner filed a motion to reopen. He principally contended that the IJ lacked authority to conduct the removal proceedings because the NTA was defective. Petitioner submitted an affidavit in which he stated that he received the NTA but that it did not contain the date and time of his removal proceedings. Now he contends that we should remand the matter to the Board for reconsideration of his NTA challenge in light of Rodriguez v. Garland, 15 F.4th 351 (5th Cir. 2021). We disagree. In Rodriguez, the alien received an undated NTA but did not receive a subsequent notice of hearing (“NOH”) because he moved. Here, by contrast, petitioner received the NTA and does not dispute that he also received the subsequent NOH. See Red Br. 9 n.3. The fact that petitioner received the NOH (or does not dispute receiving the NOH) makes Rodriguez distinguishable. See Singh v. Garland, 51 F.4th 371, 381 & n.5 (9th Cir. 2022)(Collins, J., dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc). The petition for review is DENIED. All pending motions are DENIED.	”
—Judges Leslie Southwick, Andrew Oldham, and Cory Wilson

On January 18, 2023, Campos-Chaves petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, specifically the notice requirements for removal proceedings including the time and place of the hearing. On June 30, 2023, SCOTUS added the case to its merits docket to hear arguments.

Garland v. Singh

On February 4, 2022, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in the case:

“	This appeal requires us to decide what notice must be given to noncitizens before the government can order them removed in absentia. The Immigration & Nationality Act provides for two ways in which an in absentia removal order can be rescinded. The first is through a motion to reopen filed within 180 days after the date of the order of removal if the noncitizen can show that their failure to appear was due to "exceptional circumstances." 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i). The second is through a motion to reopen "filed at any time" if the noncitizen can show that they "did not receive notice in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a) of this title." § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). Petitioner Varinder Singh seeks rescission of his removal order, entered in absentia, under both ways to gain this relief. First, he contends that he did not receive proper notice under § 1229(a) pursuant to Pereira v. Sessions , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 201 L.Ed.2d 433 (2018). Second, he argues that "exceptional circumstances" were present in his case. The Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirmed the Immigration Judge's denial of his motion to reopen and rejected both of his arguments. Because the decisions of the Immigration Judge and BIA rested on a legally erroneous interpretation of § 1229(a), we grant relief based on Singh's first argument.	”
—Judge Ronald M. Gould

Questions presented

The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:

Questions presented in Campos-Chaves v. Garland: “ If the government serves an initial notice document that does not include the "time and place" of proceedings, followed by an additional document containing that information, has the government provided notice "required under" and 'in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a)" such that an immigration court must enter a removal order in absentia and deny a noncitizen's request to rescind that order? ”

Questions presented in Garland v. Singh: “ [W]hether the failure to receive, in a single document, all of the information specified in paragraph (1) of 8 U.S.C. 1229(a) precludes an additional document from providing adequate notice under paragraph (2), and renders any in absentia removal order subject, indefinitely, to rescission. ”

Oral argument

Audio

Audio of oral argument:

Transcript

Transcript of oral argument:

Outcome

In a 5-4 ruling, the court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision, holding, "Because each of the aliens in this case received a proper §1229(a)(2) notice for the hearings they missed and at which they were ordered removed, they cannot seek rescission of their in absentia removal orders on the basis of defective notice under §1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). Pp 7–16." Justice Samuel Alito delivered the court's majority opinion. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Neil Gorsuch.

Opinion

In the court's majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote:

“	When the Government seeks to remove an alien, it is required to notify the alien of the time and place of the removal hearings. Title 8 U. S. C. §1229(a) describes two types of notice—an initial notice to appear under paragraph(1), and, “in the case of any change or postponement in the time and place of ” the removal proceedings, a notice ofhearing under paragraph (2). When an alien fails to appear at his removal hearing despite receiving such notice, he“shall be ordered removed in absentia” if the Government can make certain showings. §1229a(b)(5)(A). The alien can seek to have that order rescinded, however, if the alien can demonstrate that he “did not receive notice in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2) of [§1229(a)].” We granted certiorari in these cases to consider what it means to “demonstrat[e] that the alien did not receive notice in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2).” §1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii); 600 U. S. ___ (2023). Each of the aliens in these cases argues that he may seek rescission because he did notreceive a notice to appear that complies with paragraph (1). We hold that, to rescind an in absentia removal order on the ground that the alien “did not receive notice in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2),” the alien must show that he did not receive notice under either paragraph for the hearing at which the alien was absent and ordered removed. Because each of the aliens in these cases received a proper para-graph (2) notice for the hearings they missed and at which they were ordered removed, they cannot seek rescission of their in absentia removal orders on the basis of defective notice under §1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). ... We affirm the judgment of the Fifth Circuit and reverse the Ninth Circuit’s judgment in Garland v. Mendez-Colín. We vacate the Ninth Circuit’s judgment in Garland v. Singh, and remand that case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.	”
—Justice Samuel Alito

Dissenting opinion

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Neil Gorsuch.

In her dissent, Justice Jackson wrote:

“	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 at-tend 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” (herein after 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, side-steps our precedents, and upends the careful in absentia removal framework Congress has crafted. So, I respectfully dissent.	”
—Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

Text of the opinion

Read the full opinion here.

October term 2023-2024

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2023-2024

The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 2, 2023. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.

See also

• 

  Supreme Court cases, October term 2023-2024

• 

  Supreme Court of the United States

• 

  History of the Supreme Court

External links

Suggest a link

• Search Google News for this topic
• U.S. Supreme Court docket file - Campos-Chaves v. Garland (petitions, motions, briefs, opinions, and attorneys)
• SCOTUSblog case file for Campos-Chaves v. Garland
• U.S. Supreme Court docket file - Garland v. Singh (petitions, motions, briefs, opinions, and attorneys)
• SCOTUSblog case file for Garland v. Singh
• Initiation of removal proceedings, 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)
• 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), Inadmissable aliens

Footnotes

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams, Managing Editor of Events • Joseph Greaney, Managing Editor of Policy • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Victoria Edwards • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Brandon McCauley • Andrew McNair • Ellie Mikus • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Heather Yates