Мы говорим по-русски
Decisions · 585 U.S. 198 (2018)

Pereira v. Sessions

The Supreme Court held that a notice to appear lacking the hearing time or place does not trigger the cancellation-of-removal stop-time rule. That holding does not mean every notice defect invalidates proceedings.

Published:

Scope and purpose

The opinion interprets the statutory trigger in 8 U.S.C. §1229b(d)(1). It concerns the continuous-presence calculation for cancellation, not a universal rule that an immigration court has no authority whenever a notice omits a hearing date.

Related rules and practical context

Niz-Chavez later addressed the single-document requirement for this trigger. Read Form I-862 and subsequent notices against the record, INA §240A and later authority; neither decision by itself proves every cancellation requirement.

Primary sources

General reference information, not legal advice. A summary does not replace the statute or full decision. Check applicability and subsequent developments before filing. Publication does not imply attorney legal review or create an attorney-client relationship.

Frequently asked questions

What is Pereira v. Sessions?

The Supreme Court held that a notice to appear lacking the hearing time or place does not trigger the cancellation-of-removal stop-time rule. That holding does not mean every notice defect invalidates proceedings.

What should I check before relying on this information?

Niz-Chavez later addressed the single-document requirement for this trigger. Read Form I-862 and subsequent notices against the record, INA §240A and later authority; neither decision by itself proves every cancellation requirement.

Book a Consultation