• Hours & Info

    (562) 495-0554
    M-F: 8:00am - 6:00 p.m.
    Sat: 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
  • Social

  • Past Blog Posts

Court Denies Petition for Review, Citing Bermudez-Cota

The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review of the BIA’s denial of relief from removal after the petitioner argued that in light of Pereira v. Sessions, a Notice to Appear (NTA) lacking the time and date of the hearing was insufficient to vest jurisdiction with the immigration court. Citing Matter of Bermudez-Cota, the court held that even when an NTA doesn’t specify the time and date of an individual’s initial removal hearing, as long as a notice of hearing specifying this information is later sent to the individual in a timely manner, the immigration court has jurisdiction over the individual’s removal proceedings.

Supreme Court rules on defective Notice to Appears

In Pereira v. Sessions, __ U.S. __, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), the U.S. Supreme Court held that service of a putative charging document that does not specify the time and place of removal proceedings does not meet the statutory definition of a Notice to Appear (NTA) under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) and, therefore, does not cut off a noncitizen’s ability to accrue the time in the United States required to qualify for cancellation of removal. Although the government is attempting to cabin the ruling’s impact to the cancellation of removal context, practitioners can apply the rationale underlying the Court’s interpretation of § 1229(a) to a wider variety of challenges. Furthermore, practitioners can file motions to reconsider and/or reopen prior removal orders predicated on defective NTAs within 30 to 90 days of the decision or as soon as practicable after learning of the decision.

%d bloggers like this: