Schedule Legal Consultation ( [link removed] )

*************************************************
How A Defective NTA Can Save You From Deportation
*************************************************

In April 2021, the US Supreme Court held that a defective NTA does not give the government jurisdiction to place a person in removal proceedings.

An NTA is a Notice to Appear in Immigration Court.

Defective NTAs

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Niz-Chavez v. Garland, held that the law requires that an NTA inform a person of the date and time of their hearing in Immigration Court. An NTA which fails to show the date and time of the hearing is a defective NTA which does not give the Immigration Court jurisdiction to hear a case, deny relief from deportation or order a person removed from the U.S.

Niz-Chavez repeated what another Supreme Court case, Pereira v. Sessions, stated a few years earlier. However, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and various U.S. Courts of Appeals issued a number of decisions approving the government’s attempts to narrow the holding of the Supreme Court.

Some decisions claimed that even if the NTA failed to state the date and time of the hearing, a subsequent notice of hearing which listed the date and time “cured” the defective NTA.

Niz-Chavez makes it clear that this is not correct.

*Related links*
---------------

Niz Chavez Decision Summary
( [link removed] )
Strategies - Niz Chavez v. Garlan ( [link removed] ) d

ICE Interim Litigation Position
( [link removed] )
Deportation Defense Guide ( [link removed] )

Nevertheless, one can expect that the government will continue to attempt to narrow the holdings of both Pereira and Niz-Chavez in ways that do not conform with the law.

Since both cases involved the stop-time in cancellation of removal cases, expect the government to continue to argue that Pereira and Niz-Chavez only apply to applications for cancellation of removal or to cases involving the stop time rule.

For example, on June 9, 2021, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a legal notice which states that “for 180 days from the date of the Supreme Court’s decision (i.e., until November 16, 2021), ICE attorneys handling removal cases before the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) will presumptively exercise their prosecutorial discretion to join or not oppose a motion to reopen by such noncitizen who demonstrate that they are prima facie eligible for cancellation of removal.”

While this may appear to be a positive development, why is this legal notice limited only to cancellation of removal cases when the scope of the Supreme Court’s decision in Niz-Chavez applies to all defective NTAs, not just to those cases where the person is applying for cancellation of removal? And what is the basis for the 180 day limitation?

Why the Government Wants to Limit Niz-Chavez?

As a former INS Attorney (1976-82), I foresee that the government, even under the current Administration, will continue to look for ways to attempt to narrow the Supreme Court’s holding in Niz-Chavez.

Why?
.

*Read more...* ( [link removed] )

Immigration Attorney
Carl Shusterman ( [link removed] )

Schedule Legal Consultation ( [link removed] )

Zoom Consultations Available!

*Quick Links*
-------------

About Carl ( [link removed] )
( [link removed] )
Citizenship ( [link removed] )
( [link removed] )
Client Reviews ( [link removed] )
( [link removed] )
Deportation Defense ( [link removed] )

EB Green Cards ( [link removed] )

Employers Guide ( [link removed] )
( [link removed] )
Forms
( [link removed] )
Green Cards ( [link removed] )
( [link removed] )
Marriage ( [link removed] )
( [link removed] )
Processing Times ( [link removed] )

Subscribe to Our Newsletter
( [link removed] )
Success Stories ( [link removed] )
( [link removed] )
Temporary Visas
( [link removed] )
Visa Bulletin ( [link removed] )

Visa Bulletin Predictions ( [link removed] )

LinkedIn ( [link removed] )

YouTube ( [link removed] )

Twitter ( [link removed] )

Facebook ( [link removed] )

*Disclaimer:* This newsletter is not intended to establish an attorney-client relationship. All information contained in this newsletter is generalized. Any reliance on information contained herein is taken at your own risk.
All content Copyright © Carl Shusterman 1995-2021, All rights reserved

Unsubscribe ( [link removed] )