Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-459_1o13.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

6 

PEREIRA v. SESSIONS 

Opinion of the Court 

respected member of his community. 

In  2006,  Pereira  was  arrested  in  Massachusetts  for 
operating  a  vehicle  while  under  the  influence  of  alcohol. 
On May 31, 2006, while Pereira was detained, DHS served
him  (in  person)  with  a  document  labeled  “Notice  to  Ap-
pear.”  App. 7–13.  That putative notice charged Pereira as 
removable  for  overstaying  his  visa,  informed  him  that 
“removal  proceedings”  were  being  initiated  against  him, 
and provided him with information about the “[c]onduct of
the  hearing”  and  the  consequences  for  failing  to  appear. 
Id.,  at  7,  10–12.    Critical  here,  the  notice  did  not  specify 
the date and time of Pereira’s removal hearing.  Instead, it 
ordered  him  to  appear  before  an  Immigration  Judge  in
Boston “on a date to be set at a time to be set.”  Id., at  9 
(underlining in original). 

More  than  a  year  later,  on  August  9,  2007,  DHS  filed 
the 2006 notice with the Boston Immigration Court.  The 
Immigration Court thereafter attempted to mail Pereira a 
more  specific  notice  setting  the  date  and  time  for  his  ini-
tial  removal  hearing  for  October  31,  2007,  at  9:30  a.m.
But that second notice was sent to Pereira’s street address 
rather  than  his  post  office  box  (which  he  had  provided  to 
DHS),  so  it  was  returned  as  undeliverable.  Because  Pe-
reira never received notice of the time and date of his re- 
moval  hearing,  he  failed  to  appear,  and  the  Immigration
Court ordered him removed in absentia.  Unaware of that re-
moval order, Pereira remained in the United States. 

In 2013, after Pereira had been in the country for more
than  10  years,  he  was  arrested  for  a  minor  motor  vehicle 
violation  (driving  without  his  headlights  on)  and  was
subsequently  detained  by  DHS.    The  Immigration  Court 
reopened  the  removal  proceedings  after  Pereira  demon-
strated  that  he  never  received  the  Immigration  Court’s
2007  notice  setting  out  the  specific  date  and  time  of  his
hearing.  Pereira then applied for cancellation of removal, 
arguing that the stop-time rule was not triggered by DHS’