Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-459_1o13.pdf
Page Number: 29

2 

PEREIRA v. SESSIONS 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

that he or she “has been physically present in the United 
States  for  a  continuous  period  of  not  less  than  10  years.” 
§1229b(b)(1)(A). 
“For  purposes  of ”  that  rule,  however, 
“any  period  of  . . .  continuous  physical  presence  in  the 
United States shall be deemed to end . . . when the alien is 
served  a  notice  to  appear  under  section  1229(a)  of  this
title.”  §1229b(d)(1).    That  language  acts  as  a  stop-time
rule,  preventing  the  continuous-presence  clock  from  con-
tinuing  to  run  once  an  alien  is  served  with  a  notice  to 
appear.

The question presented by this case is whether the stop-
time rule is triggered by service of a notice to appear that 
is  incomplete  in  some  way.    A  provision  of  the  amended 
Immigration  and  Nationality  Act  requires  that  the  Gov-
ernment  serve  an  alien  who  it  seeks  to  remove  with  a 
notice  to  appear  “specifying”  a  list  of  things,  including 
“[t]he  nature  of  the  proceedings  against  the  alien,”  “[t]he
legal authority under which the proceedings are conducted,”
“[t]he  acts  or  conduct  alleged  to  be  in  violation  of  law,” 
“[t]he  charges  against  the  alien  and  the  statutory  provi-
sions alleged to have been violated,” and (what is relevant 
here)  “[t]he  time  and  place  at  which  the  proceedings  will
be held.”  §§1229(a)(1)(A), (B), (C), (D), (G)(i).

Petitioner  Wescley  Pereira  is  a  Brazilian  citizen  who
entered  the  United  States  lawfully  in  2000  but  then  ille-
gally  overstayed  his  nonimmigrant  visa.    In  2006,  the 
Government  caused  him  to  be  served  in  person  with  a
document styled as a notice to appear for removal proceed-
ings.  Pereira concedes that he overstayed his visa and is
thus  removable,  but  he  argues  that  he  is  nonetheless
eligible  for  cancellation  of  removal  because  he  has  now 
been  in  the  country  continuously  for  more  than  10  years.
He contends that the notice served on him in 2006 did not 
qualify as a notice to appear because it lacked one piece of 
information  that  such  a  notice  is  supposed  to  contain,
namely, the time at which his removal proceedings were to