Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-459_1o13.pdf
Page Number: 38

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

11 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

interpretation, a notice that omits some of the information 
required by §1229(a)(1) might still be a “notice to appear.”
We  often  use  language  in  this  way.    In  everyday  life,  a
person  who  sees  an  old  Chevy  with  three  wheels  in  a 
junkyard would still call it a car.  Language is often used 
the same way in the law.  Consider the example of a notice 
of appeal.  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.  Rule  Civ. 
Proc.  11(a).  So  what  happens  if  a  notice  of  appeal  is  in-
complete  in  some  way—say,  because  it  is  unsigned  but 
otherwise impeccable?  If a court clerk wanted to point out 
the lack of a signature to an attorney, the clerk is far more
likely  to  say,  “there  is  a  problem  with  your  notice  of  ap-
peal,” than to say, “there is a problem with this document 
you  filed;  it’s  not  signed  and  therefore  I  don’t  know  what 
to call it, but I can’t call it a notice of appeal because it is
unsigned.”

Furthermore,  just  because  a  legal  document  is  incom-
plete, it does not necessarily follow that it is without legal
effect.  Consider again the notice of appeal.  As a general
matter,  an  appeal  “may  be  taken”  in  a  civil  case  “only  by 
filing a notice of appeal” “within 30 days after entry of the
judgment or order appealed from.”  Fed. Rules App. Proc.
3(a),  4(a)(1)(A).  While  an  unsigned  notice  of  appeal  does
not meet the substantive requirements set out in Rule 11,
in  Becker  v.  Montgomery,  532  U. S.  757,  763,  768  (2001),
this  Court  unanimously  held  that  a  litigant  who  filed  a 
timely  but  unsigned  notice  of  appeal  still  beat  the  30-day 
clock for filing appeals.  As we explained, “imperfections in
noticing  an  appeal  should  not  be  fatal  where  no  genuine
doubt exists about who is appealing, from what judgment, 
to which appellate court.”  Id., at 767. 

If Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure can be 
read  in  this  way,  it  is  not  unreasonable  to  do  the  same 
with  §1229(a)(1).  And  in  trying  to  distinguish  an  empty