Campos-Chaves v. Garland

Because each of the noncitizens in this case received a proper notice for the removal hearings they missed and at which they were ordered removed from the United States, they cannot seek rescission of their in absentia removal orders on the basis of defective notice under §1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). Justice Samuel Alito authored the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court. The phrase “notice in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2)” in §1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii) means that either a paragraph (1) notice to appear (NTA) or a paragraph (2) notice of hearing can suffice to defeat rescission. The word “or” is typically disjunctive, and the statutory context supports this reading. The notice that “matters” for purposes of rescission is the one that informed the noncitizen of the time and date of the missed hearing at which they were ordered removed. This aligns with §1229a(b)(5)(A), which ties “the written notice” to the specific missed proceeding. A paragraph (2) notice can stand alone and provide valid notice, even if the initial NTA was deficient. The terms “change” and “new” in paragraph (2) do not require a prior compliant NTA.  Here, the noncitizens received proper paragraph (2) notices for the hearings they missed, even though their initial NTAs lacked time and place information. Therefore, they cannot seek rescission based on defective notice. While the government must still provide an NTA, noncitizens who receive only a paragraph (2) notice must attend the hearing or face removal in absentia. They can raise issues about incomplete notice at that time. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Neil Gorsuch joined. Justice Jackson argued that the majority’s interpretation misreads the plain text of the statute and ignores the indispensable role of a compliant notice to appear (NTA) under §1229(a)(1). She contends that a paragraph (2) notice cannot stand alone and presupposes a valid NTA, as evidenced by the statute's structure, language, and context. This reading aligns with the Court’s previous statements in Pereira and Niz-Chavez, and the majority’s different interpretation disrupts Congress’s carefully crafted removal scheme, which balances efficiency with fairness and procedural integrity.