Wescley Fonseca Pereira v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III
In brief
A removal notice missing the hearing's time and place cannot trigger the stop-time rule for continuous residence.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 8-1 · June 21, 2018 · Opinion by Justice Sotomayor
- What it’s about
- The Court ruled 8–1 for Pereira, holding that an immigration notice that does not state the specific time and place of a removal hearing is not a valid “notice to appear” under the statute and does not stop a noncitizen’s continuous-residence period for cancellation-of-removal eligibility.
- Who it affects
- Noncitizens seeking cancellation of removal may remain eligible when their initial notice omitted the hearing's time and place. For example, a person who has lived continuously in the United States may be able to count additional time toward eligibility.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court reversed the First Circuit’s contrary decision.
The case addressed how strictly the government must follow Congress's required contents for a notice to appear in immigration proceedings.
Question presented
Whether, to trigger the stop-time rule by serving a "notice to appear," the government must "specify" the items listed in the definition of a "notice to appear," including "[t]he time and place at which the proceedings will be held."?
What the Court decided
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Dissented
- Wrote an opinion
- Majority · 7joined the Court's opinion
- Concurring · 1agreed with the result, wrote separately
- Kennedywrote separately
- Dissenting · 1disagreed with the result
- Alitowrote the dissent
What's next
The Supreme Court has finished this case and reversed the First Circuit. Immigration authorities and courts must apply the Court's rule when assessing continuous residence for cancellation of removal.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
New analysis added
Opinion added: opinion
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Questions Presented
More questions
- What did the Supreme Court rule in Pereira?
- It ruled that a notice missing the time and place of a removal hearing cannot stop continuous residence for cancellation-of-removal eligibility.
- Who is affected by the Pereira decision?
- Noncitizens seeking cancellation of removal may benefit if their initial notice to appear omitted a specific hearing time and place.
- What happens next after Pereira?
- The case is finished at the Supreme Court. The First Circuit's decision was reversed, and immigration cases must follow the Court's rule.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.