Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-459_1o13.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

12 

PEREIRA v. SESSIONS 

Opinion of the Court 

Finally,  common  sense  compels  the  conclusion  that  a 
notice that does not specify when and where to appear for 
a removal proceeding is not a “notice to appear” that trig-
gers  the  stop-time  rule.  If  the  three  words  “notice  to  ap-
pear” mean anything in this context, they must mean that,
at a minimum, the Government has to provide noncitizens 
“notice” of the information, i.e., the “time” and “place,” that
would  enable  them  “to  appear”  at  the  removal  hearing  in
the  first  place.  Conveying  such  time-and-place  infor-
mation to a noncitizen is an essential function of a notice 
to  appear,  for  without  it,  the  Government  cannot  reason- 
ably  expect  the  noncitizen  to  appear  for  his  removal  pro-
ceedings.  To  hold  otherwise  would  empower  the  Govern-
ment  to  trigger  the  stop-time  rule  merely  by  sending
noncitizens  a  barebones  document  labeled  “Notice  to 
Appear,”  with  no  mention  of  the  time  and  place  of  the 
removal  proceedings,  even  though  such  documents  would
do  little  if  anything  to  facilitate  appearance  at  those  pro-
ceedings.7  “ ‘We are not willing to impute to Congress . . . 

—————— 

adequately.    Ibid.    But  nothing  in  our  interpretation  of  the  statute 
“force[s]” the Government to guess when and where a hearing will take 
place, ibid., nor does our interpretation prevent DHS and the Immigra-
tion  Courts  from  working  together  to  streamline  the  scheduling  of 
removal  proceedings,  see  infra,  at  18–19.    Far  from  “lull[ing]”  nonciti-
zens  into  a  false  sense  of  security, post,  at  14,  our  reading  (unlike  the 
Government’s  and  the  dissent’s)  still  gives  meaning  to  a  noncitizen’s
“opportunity to secure counsel before the first [removal] hearing date,” 
§1229(b)(1),  by  informing  the  noncitizen  that  the  Government  is  com-
mitted  to  moving  forward  with  removal  proceedings  at  a  specific  time
and  place.  Equipped  with  that  knowledge,  a  noncitizen  has  an  incen-
tive to obtain counsel and prepare for his hearing. 

7 At  oral  argument,  the  Government  conceded  that  a  blank  piece  of
paper  would  not  suffice  to  trigger  the  stop-time  rule  because  (in  its 
view)  such  a  hypothetical  notice  would  fail  to  specify  the  charges 
against  the  noncitizen.    Tr.  of  Oral  Arg.  39–40  (arguing  that  notice  to 
appear  must  “tell  the  alien  what  proceedings  he  must  appear  for  and 
why  he  must  appear  for  them”).    The  dissent  also  endorses  the  view