Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-459_1o13.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2017 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

PEREIRA v. SESSIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE FIRST CIRCUIT 

No. 17–459.  Argued April 23, 2018—Decided June 21, 2018 

Under  the  Illegal  Immigration  Reform  and  Immigrant  Responsibility
Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), nonpermanent residents who are subject to re-
moval  proceedings  may  be  eligible  for  cancellation  of  removal  if,
among other things, they have “been physically present in the United
States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately
preceding  the  date  of  [an]  application”  for  cancellation.    8  U. S. C. 
§1229(b)(1)(A).  Under the stop-time rule, however, the period of con-
tinuous presence is “deemed to end . . . when the alien is served a no-
tice  to  appear  under  section  1229(a).”    §1229(d)(1)(A).    Section 
1229(a),  in  turn,  provides  that  the  Government  shall  serve  nonciti-
zens in removal proceedings with a written “ ‘notice to appear,’ ” spec-
ifying,  among  other  things,  “[t]he  time  and  place  at  which  the  [re-
moval]  proceedings  will  be  held.”    §1229(a)(1)(G)(i).  Per  a  1997 
regulation  stating  that  a  “notice  to  appear”  served  on  a  noncitizen 
need  only  provide  “the  time,  place  and  date  of  the  initial  removal
hearing,  where  practicable,”  62  Fed.  Reg.  10332,  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  im-
practicable  to  include  such  information.  The  Board  of  Immigration
Appeals  (BIA)  has  held  that  such  notices  trigger  the  stop-time  rule 
even if they do not specify the time and date of the removal proceed-
ings.

Petitioner Wescley Fonseca Pereira is a native and citizen of Brazil
who  came  to  the  United  States  in  2000  and  remained  after  his  visa 
expired.  Following a 2006 arrest for operating a vehicle while under 
the  influence  of  alcohol,  DHS  served  Pereira  with  a  document  titled 
“notice to appear” that did not specify the date and time of his initial