Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-459_1o13.pdf
Page Number: 21.0

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

17 

Opinion of the Court 

notice  that  does  not  necessarily  include  the  information 
outlined  in  §1229(a)(1).    See  Brief  for  Respondent  25–26.
That logic is unsound.  The Government essentially argues
that  phrase  1  (“written  notice  required  under  paragraph
(1) . . . of section 1229(a)”) and phrase 2 (“notice in accord-
ance  with  paragraph  (1)  . . .  of  section  1229(a)”)  can  refer 
to  the  same  type  of  notice  even  though  they  use  entirely
different words, but that phrase 3 (“notice to appear under
section  1229(a)”)  cannot  refer  to  that  same  type  of  notice
because it uses words different from phrases 1 and 2.  But 
the  Government  offers  no  convincing  reason  why  that  is 
so.  The  far  simpler  explanation,  and  the  one  that  com-
ports  with  the  actual  statutory  language  and  context,  is
that each of these three phrases refers to notice satisfying, 
at  a  minimum,  the  time-and-place  criteria  defined  in
§1229(a)(1).

Equally  unavailing  is  the  Government’s  invocation  of
§1229a(b)(7).  Brief  for  Respondent  26–27.  Under  that 
provision, a noncitizen who is ordered removed in absentia 
is  ineligible  for  various  forms  of  discretionary  relief  for  a 
10-year period if the noncitizen, “at the time of the notice
described in paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a) of [Title 
8], was provided oral notice . . . of the time and place of the 
proceedings” and “of the consequences . . . of failing, other 
than  because  of  exceptional  circumstances,”  to  appear.
§1229a(b)(7).  The  Government  argues  that  the  express
reference  to  “the  time  and  place  of  the  proceedings”  in
§1229a(b)(7)  shows  that,  when  Congress  wants  to  attach
substantive  significance  to  whether  a  noncitizen  is  given
information  about  the  specific  “time  and  place”  of  a  re-
moval proceeding, it knows exactly how to do so.  Brief for 
Respondent  26–27.  But  even  if  §1229a(b)(7)  may  impose
harsher consequences on noncitizens who fail to appear at 
removal proceedings after having specifically received oral
notice  of  the  time  and  place  of  such  proceedings,  that 
reveals  nothing  about  the  distinct  question  here—i.e.,