Campos-Chaves v. Garland
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Campos-Chaves v. Garland and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Campos-Chaves v. Garland.
In Campos-Chaves v. Garland, the Supreme Court addressed whether aliens who received notice of their removal hearings under § 1229(a)(2) could seek rescission of in absentia removal orders due to defective initial notices under § 1229(a)(1). The Court determined that the provision of a notice under either paragraph (1) or (2) suffices, and thus the aliens could not rescind their removal orders based on defective notice claims.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Campos-Chaves v. Garland.
The Court held that the aliens could not seek rescission of their in absentia removal orders because they received proper notice under § 1229(a)(2).
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Campos-Chaves v. Garland. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Campos-Chaves v. Garland
The case revolves around whether the aliens received proper notice, which is a key aspect of procedural due process.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)To initiate the removal of an alien...the Federal Government must provide the alien with 'written notice' of the proceedings.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Campos-Chaves v. Garland that support the summary and concepts above.
Because each of the aliens in this case received a proper § 1229(a)(2) notice for the hearings they missed.
The Government's provision of a single notice under either paragraph (1) or (2) defeats rescission under § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii).
Notice under paragraph (2) supersedes the NTA.
