Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-459_1o13.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

10 

PEREIRA v. SESSIONS 

Opinion of the Court 

appear  under  “section  1229(a),”  which  includes  para-
graph (1), as well as paragraphs (2) and (3).  See Brief for 
Respondent 27–28; post, at 5–6 (opinion of ALITO, J.).  But 
the  broad  reference  to  §1229(a)  is  of  no  consequence,  be-
cause,  as  even  the  Government  concedes,  only  paragraph 
(1) bears on the meaning of a “notice to appear.”  Brief for 
Respondent  27.  By  contrast,  paragraph  (2)  governs  the
“[n]otice  of  change  in  time  or  place  of  proceedings,”  and 
paragraph (3)  provides for  a  system  to  record  noncitizens’ 
addresses  and  phone  numbers.  Nowhere  else  within 
§1229(a)  does  the  statute  purport  to  delineate  the  re-
quirements of a “notice to appear.”  In fact, the term “no-
tice to appear” appears only in paragraph (1) of §1229(a).

If  anything,  paragraph  (2)  of  §1229(a)  actually  bolsters
the  Court’s  interpretation  of  the  statute.    Paragraph  (2)
provides that, “in the case of any change or postponement 
in  the  time  and  place  of  [removal]  proceedings,”  the  Gov-
ernment  shall  give  the  noncitizen  “written  notice  . . . 
specifying  . . .  the  new  time  or  place  of  the  proceedings.” 
§1229(a)(2)(A)(i).  By  allowing  for  a  “change  or  postpone-
ment”  of  the  proceedings  to  a  “new  time  or  place,”  para-
graph  (2)  presumes  that  the  Government  has  already 
served  a  “notice  to  appear  under  section  1229(a)”  that
specified a time and place as required by §1229(a)(1)(G)(i). 
Otherwise,  there  would  be  no  time  or  place  to  “change  or
postpon[e ].”    §1229(a)(2).  Notably,  the  dissent  concedes
that  paragraph  (2)  confirms  that  a  notice  to  appear  must
“state  the  ‘time  and  place’  of  the  removal  proceeding  as
required by §1229(a)(1).’ ”  Post, at 13.  The dissent never-
theless retorts that this point is “entirely irrelevant.”  Ibid. 
Not  so.  Paragraph  (2)  clearly  reinforces  the  conclusion 
to  appear  under  section  1229(a),”
that 
§1229b(d)(1),  must  include  at  least  the  time  and  place  of 
the removal proceedings to trigger the stop-time rule. 

“a  notice 

Another  neighboring  statutory  provision  lends  further 
contextual  support  for  the  view  that  a  “notice  to  appear”