Campos-Chaves v. Garland

Moris Campos-Chaves, a citizen of El Salvador, was ordered removed in absentia after failing to appear at his removal hearing. He moved to reopen proceedings, arguing that the initial Notice to Appear did not include the time and place of the hearing, and a subsequent notice containing those details was defective. The Supreme Court consolidated his case with Garland v. Singh, a similar challenge. The Court ruled 5-4 that the government satisfies the notice requirement under 8 U.S.C. §1229(a) when it serves an initial notice followed by a supplemental notice that provides the missing time and place information, even if the two documents are separate. The decision held that such two-step notice is sufficient to support an in absentia removal order.

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower courts, holding that two separate documents—a Notice to Appear lacking hearing specifics and a subsequent notice of hearing with those details—together satisfy the statutory notice requirements. Consequently, the in absentia removal orders were upheld and the motions to reopen were denied.

Whether the Immigration and Nationality Act requires a single document to contain all the time, place, and date information of a removal hearing in order for a noncitizen to be deemed to have received proper notice, thus permitting an in absentia deportation order.

The ruling narrowed the ability of noncitizens to challenge in absentia deportation orders on procedural notice grounds. Immigration advocates criticized the decision, arguing it weakens due process protections, while the government asserted it preserves the efficiency of the removal system. The case is expected to affect tens of thousands of pending and future immigration proceedings by limiting litigation over defective initial notices.