Campos-Chaves v. Garland
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Campos-Chaves v. Garland and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Campos-Chaves v. Garland.
In Campos-Chaves v. Garland, the Supreme Court addressed whether aliens who received a notice of hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(2) could rescind in absentia removal orders based on defective initial notices to appear (NTAs) under § 1229(a)(1). The Court considered cases from the Fifth and Ninth Circuits where aliens argued they did not receive proper NTAs. The Court concluded that receiving a notice under § 1229(a)(2) suffices for notice requirements, thus preventing rescission of removal orders.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Campos-Chaves v. Garland.
The Court held that aliens who received a proper notice of hearing under § 1229(a)(2) cannot rescind their in absentia removal orders on the basis of defective initial NTAs under § 1229(a)(1).
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Campos-Chaves v. Garland. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Due Process is relevant to Campos-Chaves v. Garland
The case involves the procedural requirement of providing notice to aliens in removal proceedings, which is a fundamental aspect of due process.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Federal Government must provide the alien with 'written notice' of the proceedings.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Campos-Chaves v. Garland that support the summary and concepts above.
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).
The Government's provision of a single notice under either paragraph (1) or (2) defeats rescission under § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii).
Notice under paragraph (2) supersedes the NTA; when there is paragraph (2) notice, it is that notice which informs the alien when to appear, not the NTA.