Campos-Chaves v. Garland

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 30 Jun 2023

The Immigration and Nationality Act provides that a noncitizen who does not appear at a removal hearing shall beordered removed in absentia. but only if she was provided "written notice required under paragraph (l) or (2) of section 1229(a).'' 8 U.S.C. §1229a (b)(5)(A). The Act authorizes rescission of an in absentia order if the noncitizen "did not receive no- tice in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a)." Id. §1229a (b)(5)(C)(ii). Paragraph (1) of section 1229(a) requires a single notice document that contains all the information specified in the statute, including the "time and place" of proceedings. See Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474, 1480-1485 (2021). Paragraph (2) requires notice of the "new time and place" "in the case of any change or postponement in the time and place of such pro-ceedings." The question presented is: 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 para- graph (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?

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case involves Campos-Chaves, a non-citizen facing deportation from the United States. The central issue was whether certain procedural errors during his immigration proceedings violated his rights under U.S. law and warranted a review of his removal order. Campos-Chaves argued that these errors affected the fairness of the process, thus entitling him to relief or reconsideration of his case. The Supreme Court examined if such procedural missteps were significant enough to impact the outcome materially and if they constituted grounds for judicial intervention in administrative immigration decisions.