Wescley Fonseca Pereira, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General

This case asked whether the government can trigger the stop-time rule by sending a "notice to appear" that does not include the time and place of the hearing. The Court said that an incomplete notice like that does not trigger the stop-time rule.

The Court decided the case on June 21, 2018, but the prompt does not provide the vote count or opinion lineup.

This affects people in immigration removal cases who may need to count years they have lived in the United States to seek permission to stay. For example, someone who received an incomplete notice may still be able to count more time toward that request.

The Supreme Court has finished this case. The decision now guides lower courts and immigration officials in cases involving incomplete notices to appear.

The dispute was whether a notice to appear counts if it leaves out when and where the hearing will happen. The Court said that kind of incomplete notice does not trigger the stop-time rule.

People in removal proceedings are most affected, especially those trying to count years in the country to seek permission to stay. An incomplete notice may help them keep counting that time.

The Supreme Court is done with this docket. Lower courts and immigration officials must apply the decision in similar cases about incomplete notices to appear.