Campos-Chaves v Garland: The Relationship Between The U.S. Government and the Non-Citizen

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) establishes the procedures for the removal of non-citizens, who are present in the United States illegally, when necessary. Section 239 of the INA contains all of the information necessary for a Notice to Appear (NTA), which is a document that must be received by a non-citizen for their removal hearing. This document would include information such as the charges, the jurisdiction, and the location and date of the hearing. [1] The receipt of an NTA by a non-citizen would start the Stop-Time Rule of Section 240A of the INA, which would end the counting of a non-citizen's time in the United States. [2] On June 14th, 2024, the Supreme Court made a decision on the content of the NTA, which broke the precedent set by two prior cases in 2018 and 2021. The June ruling has subverted the precedent in that a notice to appear was deemed to be insufficient when lacking the time and date in the prior two cases, meaning that if the hearing occurred while the non-citizen was absent, they could appeal decisions that were made while they were not present. With the new ruling, the insufficient NTA would not be reason enough to appeal those decisions. This change in direction by the court in Campos-Chaves v. Garland (2024) has changed the relationship between the United States government and a non-citizen, and also could have a large impact on future related cases.

The case of Campos-Chaves v. Garland (2024), which focused on Moris Campos-Chaves’ complaint, came to the Supreme Court in January of 2024 and was decided in June of 2024. [3] Moris Campos-Chaves is a non-citizen who was ordered to be removed because he missed his hearing that the order for removal originated from. He argued that the Notice to Appear that he received did not contain the time and date but a follow up document he received did. [4] In the final decision, argued by Justice Alito, it was determined that a Notice to Appear did not have to contain the time and date, and that the notice was sufficient enough to trigger the Stop Time Rule, as relates to the statute, with missing details if there was a follow up document with the details included. [5] In the court’s decision, Justice Alito stated that the information on the second NTA should be used by the non-citizen to attend the hearing and explain the issues with the first NTA, so that the hearing could be rescheduled. [6] This new ruling has given the non-citizen more of a duty in their representation of themselves, now that they essentially must attend two hearings; one to address the error, and one to address removal. Furthermore, this new decision deviates greatly from decisions in precedents, Pereira v Sessions (2018) and Niz-Chavez v Garland (2021), which both supported that an incomplete NTA coupled with later sent complete NTA were not compliant with the INA statute.

In Pereira v Sessions (2018), Wescely Fonseca Pereira was similarly given an NTA without a time and date through the mail, which was followed by a second one containing the missing information, however it was mailed to an address at which he could not receive it. [7] As a result, he was unable to attend his hearing which caused the judge to order him to be removed without the ability to challenge, as he was not there. [8] This case dealt specifically with the Stop Time Rule of Section 240A (d)(1) of the INA as it relates to whether or not the time and date of the hearing had to be present for the rule to start. Justice Sotomayor, in the decision, held that the NTA must be complete for the Stop Time Rule to kick in, and that this requirement would actually aid in allowing the Stop Time Rule to work as it was meant to. [9] Here, the ruling empowers the government to take the responsibility of issuing a properly complete NTA, incentivising it through the fact that doing so would block a non-citizen from being able to keep accruing time. This hinders the non-citizen from pursuing appeal pathways such as finding exemption through being present in the United States for ten years, which would be an avenue towards being granted residence under INA § 240A (b)(1)(A).

The focusing of the responsibility of the rectification of the NTA on the government rather than the non-citizen continues in Niz-Chavez v Garland (2021). In this case, Agusto Niz-Chavez also received an incomplete NTA, and based on the decision in Pereira v Sessions (2018), he believed that since the NTA’s information spanned more than one document he could challenge the order for removal provided at the hearing he did attend. [10] In the opinion of the court for this case, Justice Gorsuch stated that allowing the government to spread out the information of the notice across more than one NTA would complicate the original meaning of the statute and cause the government to be lax in their duties. [11] For this reason, it was decided that Niz-Chaves should be allowed to appeal the decision of the hearing he attended because the government did not correctly perform its task of informing the non-citizen. Although he was able to be present as a result of updated information provided in the second NTA, the incompleteness of the first one was not in accordance with the removal procedures of INA § 239 (a)(1), which gave Niz-Chaves the right to challenge. [12] Once again, the court found that it was the role of the government to ensure that they are properly informing non-citizens with NTAs that adhere to the statute, only this time, unlike in Pereira v Sessions (2018) where there is incentive to do so, in Niz-Chavez v Garland, there is a punishment of sorts for the government not doing so. That punishment being the non-citizen having the ability to appeal the decisions made although they were able to be present, simply because the information was not in one document.

The statute that outlines the required components of the Notice to Appear is INA § 239 (a)(1), and the statute that outlines the required components for updated NTAs is INA § 239 (a)(2)(A). The new interpretation of the exact wording of these statutes is what has prompted the new ruling in Campos-Chaves v Garland (2024). In the decision, Alito notes that there are two categories under the statute, one of which is the first NTA under paragraph one, that when lacking details can be assisted by a follow up from the second category under paragraph two, that allows for new information and changes in the hearing to be relayed to the non-citizen. [13] This differs from the conclusion of Niz-Chavez v Garland (2021), which places an emphasis on the first notice needing to have all of the right details, and states that follow up documents should only provide updates for information already present in the first NTA. [14] This also diverges from Pereira v Sessions (2018), which has a very similar conclusion to Niz-Chavez v Garland (2021), but stipulates that the statute has very clear language on the need for the first document sent to contain the correct information. [15] The contrasting decision of Campos-Chaves v Garland (2024), establishes the statute as vague, diverting from previous precedent that argued the wording to be specific in its requirements.

In her dissent of the 2024 ruling, Justice Jackson expresses her concern over this broadening of understanding of the statute. She notes that the new ruling will allow the government more flexibility in their creation of NTAs and allows them to be negligent in their duties to inform the non-citizen of their hearing, which would cause the non-citizen to have more responsibility and a larger commitment in preparation for the hearing. [16] She then expresses her concern with the interpretation of the word “change” by the court as relates to INA 239 (a)(2)(A), as she postulates that the word “change” indicates that something already present is being modified, not that something that was never there to begin with was added. [17] If the statute was understood, how Justice Jackson argues, it would be analysed with knowledge of the context that Congress wrote it with, which would mean that the first Notice to Appear should contain the correct time and date. [18] Without this, she says, the relationship between the United States Government and the non-citizen is fundamentally changed as the Government has made its inability to provide a complete NTA the problem of the non-citizen. [19] This ruling has effectively closed off many avenues of appeal that stemmed from the issuing of incomplete NTAs, without repairing the governmental system that produces these faulty documents and therefore the need to pursue these loopholes. As Justice Jackson argues in her dissent, Campos-Chaves v Garland will only further disadvantage non-citizens attempting to find their footing in a new and unfamiliar country. [20]

This new decision by the Supreme Court will have a large impact on future removal hearings due to this change in relationship responsibilities. The most notable impact coming up with the Supreme Court case of Velazquez v Garland, which was argued on November twelfth, 2024 and has yet to be decided. In the case, Hugo Abisai Monsalvo Velazquez lived in the United States for a decade after being sent an incomplete NTA, and wanted to appeal for his order for removal by asking to become a resident, as he had lived there over ten years after receiving the incomplete NTA. [21] As seen with Pereira v Sessions, Velazquez aimed to take advantage of the Stop Time Rule not being activated as his NTA was incomplete and allowed him to count ten more years. Velazquez’s case however, deals with the filing of his appeal, which he had sixty days to do after he was ordered to be removed, and failed to do so which raises the query of whether weekends and holidays count as a part of those sixty days. [22] Although the question of this case has more so to do with dissecting what exactly constitutes sixty days, the facts surrounding it are similar to those of the precedents overturned by Campos-Chaves v Garland, and may act as a harbinger of what the court may end up deciding. If the justices elaborate upon the theme set forth in Campos-Chaves v Garland, of making the non-citizen hold more responsibility as opposed to the government, the leeway that Velazquez is hoping to find may not be granted.

 

[1] Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 § 239, 8 U.S.C § 1229 (1996).

[2] Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 § 240A, 8 U.S.C § 1229b (1996).

[3] Oyez “Campos-Chavez v. Garland.”

[4] id at 3.

[5] Campos-Chaves v. Garland, 602 U.S. ___ (2024) (Alito, J., opinion).

[6] id at 5.

[7] Oyez “Pereira v. Sessions.”

[8] id at 7.

[9] Pereira v. Sessions, 585 U. S. 198 (2018) (Sotomayor, J., opinion).

[10] Oyez “Niz-Chavez v. Garland.”

[11] Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U. S. 155 (2021) (Gorsuch, J., opinion).

[12] id at 11.

[13] id at 5.

[14] id at 11.

[15] id at 9.

[16] Campos-Chaves v. Garland, 602 U.S. ___ (2024) (Jackson, J., dissenting).

[17] id at 16.

[18] id at 16.

[19] id at 16.

[20] id at 16.

[21] Oyez “Velazquez v. Garland.”

[22] id at 21.

 

Works Cited

“Campos-Chaves v. Garland, 602 U.S. ___ (2024).” Justia US Supreme Court Center. Accessed 

November, 2024. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/602/22-674/#tab-opinion-4902863.

"Campos-Chaves v. Garland." Oyez. Accessed November 19, 2024. 

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-674.

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 § 240A, 8 U.S.C § 1229b (1996).

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 § 239, 8 U.S.C § 1229 (1996).

“Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U. S. 155 (2021) Justia US Supreme Court Center. Accessed 

November, 2024. 

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/593/19-863/#tab-opinion-4420499

"Niz-Chavez v. Garland." Oyez. Accessed November 19, 2024. 

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/19-863.

“Pereira v. Sessions, 585 U. S. 198 (2018) Justia US Supreme Court Center. Accessed 

November, 2024. 

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/585/17-459/#tab-opinion-3918484

"Pereira v. Sessions." Oyez. Accessed November 19, 2024. 

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/17-459.

"Velazquez v. Garland." Oyez. Accessed November 19, 2024. 

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/23-929.