| Abstrakt: |
The Court in January will hear three immigration cases consolidated in Campos-Chaves v. Garland. In Campos-Chaves, the petitioner moved to reopen an in absentia deportation order because he did not receive a compliant Notice to Appear (NTA) including the time and place of his hearing. Campos-Chaves argued that the government used its “two-step notice practice,†which omitted the time and place from his notice to appear. He argues that he did not receive a compliant Notice of Hearing (NOH), the second step, because such a notice may only follow a proper Notice to Appear. The Fifth Circuit denied Campos-Chaves relief. In Garland v. Singh and Garland v. Mendez-ColÃn, consolidated with Campos-Chaves, the Ninth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion. The statutes at issue are 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(2) and (a)(2)(A)(i), along with 8 U.S.C. § 1229(b)(5)(C)(ii). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
