Pereira v. Sessions — Quick Summary

Pereira v. Sessions

Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018) (U.S. Supreme Court)

In Brief

Pereira v. Sessions is a landmark immigration and statutory interpretation case that reshaped how removal proceedings commence and how eligibility for cancellation of removal is assessed.

Key Issue

Does service of a notice to appear that omits the time or place of the removal hearing trigger the stop-time rule under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1)(A)?

The Rule

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1)(A), the stop-time rule is triggered when the noncitizen is served "a notice to appear under section 1229(a)." Section 1229(a) defines a "notice to appear" as a written notice specifying, among other things, the "time and place at which the proceedings will be held." Accordingly, service of an NTA that fails to include the time or place of the hearing does not constitute service of a "notice to appear under § 1229(a)" and does not trigger the stop-time rule. Because the statute is unambiguous, no deference to contrary agency interpretations is warranted.

Bottom Line

No. A notice to appear that does not include the time or place of the removal hearing is not a "notice to appear under § 1229(a)" and therefore does not trigger the stop-time rule for cancellation of removal.

Why It Matters

Pereira reset the baseline for what constitutes a valid "notice to appear" for purposes of the stop-time rule and, by extension, eligibility for non-LPR cancellation of removal. In immediate practice, it invalidated a widespread DHS and EOIR practice of issuing NTAs that left time and place "to be set," prompting motions to reopen, challenges to prior stop-time determinations, and adjustments to charging practices. For law students, the case is a vivid illustration of textualism, term-of-art cross-references, the limits of agency deference when statutory language is unambiguous, and the interplay between procedural formality and substantive eligibility consequences in immigration law. It also laid groundwork for subsequent litigation, culminating in Niz-Chavez v. Garland (2021), which further clarified that a single document must contain all statutorily required information to trigger the stop-time rule.

Master More Immigration Law / Statutory Interpretation Cases with Briefly

Get AI-powered case briefs, practice questions, and study tools to excel in your law studies.