Finally, common sense compels the conclusion that a notice that does not specify when and where to appear for a removal proceeding is not a “notice to appear” that triggers the stop-time rule. As noted, the stop-time rule provides that “any period of . NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. . Although the time-and-place information in a notice to appear will vary from case to case, the Government acknowledges that “[m]uch of the information Section 1229(a)(1) calls for does not” change and is therefore “included in standardized language on the I–862 notice-to-appear form.” Brief for Respondent 36 (referencing 8 U. S. C. §§1229(a)(1)(A)–(B), (E)–(F), and (G)(ii)).

specifying” several required pieces of information, including “[t]he time and place at which the [removal] proceedings will be held.” §1229(a)(1)(G)(i).

Looking forward to German Literature Month as well. With the text of both the stop-time rule and §1229(a)(1) irreducibly ambiguous, the Court must next look to two neighboring provisions to support its conclusion that its interpretation is the only reasonable one. & N. Dec., at 648; Tr. Pereira is married and has two young daughters, both of whom are United States citizens. “(ii) The consequences under section 1229a(b)(5) of this title of the failure, except under exceptional cir-. The Attorney General has the discretion to cancel the removal of a non-permanent resident alien if the alien, among other things, has ten years of continuous physical presence in the United States. See Moscoso-Castellanos v. Lynch, 803 F. 3d 1079, 1083 (CA9 2015); O’Garro v. United States Atty. .

The BIA concluded that they do. But that second notice was sent to Pereira’s street address rather than his post office box (which he had provided to DHS), so it was returned as undeliverable. One day he meets Montiero Rossi, an aspiring young writer whose anti-fascist fervor is as strong as Pereira's apolitical languor. All that is required is that the Government’s view be “reasonable”; it need not be “the only possible interpretation, nor even the interpretation deemed most reasonable by the courts.” Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., Those definitions, the Government and dissent maintain, support the BIA’s view that the stop-time rule applies so long as DHS serves a notice that is “authorized by,” or “subject to or governed by, or issued under the authority of” §1229(a), even if the notice bears none of the time-and-place information required by that provision. I regret I didn’t have the time to read this novel myself but will do so very soon. I won’t give away the ending, but it’s satisfying and quite unexpected. The Department of Homeland Security may thus be hard pressed to include on initial notices to appear a hearing date that is anything more than a rough estimate subject to considerable change. Someone is reporting Pereira’s testimony, but the reader never knows who the narrator is, or who he is reporting to, or the circumstances under which Pereira came to give this testimony, willingly or otherwise.

Does he secretly lust after Rossi? Pereira Maintains is not only the title of the novel but its first and last phrase, as well as one that recurs at regular intervals throughout the book. And bless you for the compliment – you made my day. Yes, I was interested in the different interpretations of the phrase, and of the book in general, in all the different reviews. I plan to read more. at To hold otherwise would empower the Government to trigger the stop-time rule merely by sending noncitizens a barebones document labeled “Notice to Appear,” with no mention of the time and place of the removal proceedings, even though such documents would do little if anything to facilitate appearance at those proceedings. As Rule 34.6 provides, “If the Court schedules briefing and oral argument in a case that was governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c) or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1(c), the parties shall submit electronic versions of all prior and subsequent filings with this Court in the case, subject to [applicable] redaction rules.” Subsequent party and amicus filings in the case should now be submitted through the Court’s electronic filing system, with any necessary redactions. I agree that there is a certainty to Pereira’s declaration of the facts, and he does leave out things like dreams which he deems irrelevant. The Immigration Court reopened the removal proceedings after Pereira demonstrated that he never received the 2007 notice. of Oral Arg. See Arlington v. FCC,

Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including December 12, 2017. In recent years, several Members of this Court have questioned Chevron’s foundations. See §1229(a)(2); Tr. Andrew, you are always an excellent reviewer and a fine writer whatever you are discussing! See Brief for Respondent 24; post, at 4–5. Much like a notice to appear, a notice of appeal must meet several substantive requirements; all notices of appeal, for example, “must be signed.” Fed. Pp. It is, of course, true that “[t]he word ‘under’ is [a] chameleon ” that “ ‘must draw its meaning from its context.’ ” Kucana v. Holder, such [a] contradictory and absurd purpose,’ ” United States v. Bryan,

Per that regulation, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), at least in recent years, almost always serves noncitizens with notices that fail to specify the time, place, or date of initial removal hearings whenever the agency deems it impracticable to include such information.

That putative notice charged Pereira as removable for overstaying his visa, informed him that “removal proceedings” were being initiated against him, and provided him with information about the “[c]onduct of the hearing” and the consequences for failing to appear. .

I also liked what you said about ‘maintains’ having a defensive quality. Among the summaries and analysis available for Pereira Maintains, there are 1 Short Summary and 2 Book Reviews. See ante, at 15. The Government is not required to provide written notice of the change in time or place of the proceedings if the noncitizen is “not in detention” and “has failed to provide [his] address” to the Government. Reply of petitioner Wescley Fonseca Pereira filed. . Your observation about the narrative voice is also very interesting, using the phrase seems very clever and meaningful. Intrigued by its thesis, Pereira arranges to meet its young author, Monteiro Rossi, and then gives him regular work writing obituaries and essays for the paper. It is interesting how different people read different things into the “Pereira maintains” phrase. 3009–627. Thus, Pereira contends, that notice did not trigger the stop-time rule, and the clock continued to run. This analysis suggests an abdication of the Judiciary’s proper role in interpreting federal statutes. If §1229(a)(1) is definitional and sets out the essential characteristics of a notice to appear, then the omission of any required item of information makes a putative notice to appear a nullity. Reply of petitioner Wescley Fonseca Pereira filed. When Congress became aware of the problem, it responded by clarifying that the stop-time rule should apply not only to notices to appear, but also “to orders to show cause . Under that decision, if a federal statute is ambiguous and the agency that is authorized to implement it offers a reasonable interpretation, then a court is supposed to accept that interpretation. Please contact your local library for hold pickup instructions, or to ask any questions about returned items. See Burrage v. United States, Even assuming that such an unlikely event were to come to pass, the court’s decision would surely be subject to review on appeal. An Immigration Judge ordered Petitioner removed.