Campos-Chaves v. Garland
Overview
Overview
Immigration authorities routinely issued Notices to Appear without hearing dates, then sent separate hearing notices later; when immigrants failed to appear, they were ordered removed in absentia. The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the subsequent hearing notice is sufficient to support a valid in absentia removal order, even when the original Notice to Appear was incomplete, affecting tens of thousands of pending cases.
The Facts
Facts
Due to severe immigration court backlogs, DHS regularly issued Notices to Appear in removal proceedings without including the date, time, or location of the removal hearing. Separate Notices of Hearing were sent later with that information. In multiple consolidated cases, immigrants who failed to appear after receiving Notices of Hearing challenged their in absentia removal orders, arguing that a deficient NTA broke the statutory chain required for a valid order.
The Issue
Issue
Whether an in absentia removal order is valid under the Immigration and Nationality Act when the initial Notice to Appear omitted the hearing date and time, but the noncitizen later received a Notice of Hearing with that information and still failed to appear.
The Rules
Rule
The INA authorizes in absentia removal when a noncitizen receives written notice of the time and place of proceedings and fails to appear. The Court held that this notice requirement is satisfied by any written notice from the government specifying the hearing details, including a subsequent Notice of Hearing, and does not require all information to appear in the original NTA.
The Application
Analysis
Under the INA's in absentia removal framework, the noncitizen must receive written notice of the hearing's time and place before being ordered removed for failing to appear. In Campos-Chaves, immigrants received Notices of Hearing, distinct from the deficient original NTAs, that specified when and where to appear, yet chose not to attend. The Court found that the statute's notice requirement looks to the substance of what the immigrant actually received, not the formal document that delivered it, meaning the subsequent Notice of Hearing cured any procedural defect in the original NTA and satisfied due process. Applied here, the government's bifurcated notice system, while administratively burdensome and traceable to court backlogs, met the statutory floor for removal. Noncitizens had written notice of time and place and defaulted anyway.
The Conclusion
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held 5-4 that in absentia removal orders are valid when the noncitizen received a subsequent Notice of Hearing specifying the time and place of the proceeding, regardless of deficiencies in the original Notice to Appear.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support