Pereira's Aftershocks

L. Hoffman
{"title":"Pereira's Aftershocks","authors":"L. Hoffman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3289751","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"At the end of its last term, the Supreme Court held in Pereira v. Sessions that a notice to appear at removal proceedings that does not include the time and place of the proceedings cannot interrupt the continuous physical presence requirement that may entitle a noncitizen to cancellation of removal. Since the decision was announced, there has been a feverous debate about whether the case applies not just when cancellation of removal is sought but to all immigration removal proceedings since every judicial removal proceeding is initiated with a notice to appear. Immigration advocates argue, and some courts have already agreed, that Pereira applies to all adversarial removal proceedings and that the case necessarily means that immigration courts lack subject matter jurisdiction in any case that began with a notice to appear that did not include the time and place of the proceedings. By contrast, the government’s view — and that of a number of other courts — is that Pereira is very limited in its application. To help lawyers and judges think clearly about the case’s impact, this paper offers an assessment of the issues raised. I reach several major conclusions that, collectively, are at odds with positions advanced on both sides. As for Pereira’s scope, I conclude that it applies to all removal proceedings and is not confined to the narrower context in which the case arose. However, I reject the view that treating improper notice is relevant to the immigration court’s jurisdiction over removal proceedings. But while a defective notice is irrelevant to the court’s jurisdiction, there still are consequences if the government has served a defective notice. I show that whether, and in what cases, a Pereira challenge may matter turns on three factors: Pereira’s applicability, either prospectively or retroactively; the possibility of forfeiture; and, finally, the noncitizen’s ability to demonstrate prejudice in the underlying removal proceeding resulting from service of a defective notice.","PeriodicalId":75324,"journal":{"name":"William and Mary law review","volume":"61 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"William and Mary law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3289751","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

At the end of its last term, the Supreme Court held in Pereira v. Sessions that a notice to appear at removal proceedings that does not include the time and place of the proceedings cannot interrupt the continuous physical presence requirement that may entitle a noncitizen to cancellation of removal. Since the decision was announced, there has been a feverous debate about whether the case applies not just when cancellation of removal is sought but to all immigration removal proceedings since every judicial removal proceeding is initiated with a notice to appear. Immigration advocates argue, and some courts have already agreed, that Pereira applies to all adversarial removal proceedings and that the case necessarily means that immigration courts lack subject matter jurisdiction in any case that began with a notice to appear that did not include the time and place of the proceedings. By contrast, the government’s view — and that of a number of other courts — is that Pereira is very limited in its application. To help lawyers and judges think clearly about the case’s impact, this paper offers an assessment of the issues raised. I reach several major conclusions that, collectively, are at odds with positions advanced on both sides. As for Pereira’s scope, I conclude that it applies to all removal proceedings and is not confined to the narrower context in which the case arose. However, I reject the view that treating improper notice is relevant to the immigration court’s jurisdiction over removal proceedings. But while a defective notice is irrelevant to the court’s jurisdiction, there still are consequences if the government has served a defective notice. I show that whether, and in what cases, a Pereira challenge may matter turns on three factors: Pereira’s applicability, either prospectively or retroactively; the possibility of forfeiture; and, finally, the noncitizen’s ability to demonstrate prejudice in the underlying removal proceeding resulting from service of a defective notice.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在上一届任期结束时,最高法院在Pereira诉Sessions一案中认为,不包括诉讼时间和地点的遣返程序出庭通知不能中断非公民有权取消遣返的持续实际存在要求。自该决定宣布以来,人们一直在激烈争论该案件是否不仅适用于寻求取消遣返的情况,而且适用于所有移民遣返程序,因为每一个司法遣返程序都是在收到出庭通知的情况下启动的。移民倡导者辩称,一些法院已经同意,佩雷拉适用于所有对抗性驱逐程序,该案必然意味着,移民法院在任何以出庭通知开始但不包括诉讼时间和地点的案件中都缺乏主题管辖权。相比之下,政府和其他一些法院的观点是,佩雷拉的适用非常有限。为了帮助律师和法官清楚地思考案件的影响,本文对提出的问题进行了评估。我得出了几个主要结论,这些结论总体上与双方提出的立场不一致。至于佩雷拉的范围,我的结论是,它适用于所有的遣返程序,并不局限于案件发生的狭义背景。然而,我拒绝接受这样的观点,即处理不当通知与移民法院对遣返程序的管辖权有关。但是,尽管有缺陷的通知与法院的管辖权无关,但如果政府发出了有缺陷的通知书,仍然会产生后果。我表明,佩雷拉的挑战是否重要,以及在什么情况下可能重要,取决于三个因素:佩雷拉的适用性,无论是前瞻性的还是追溯性的;没收的可能性;最后,非公民在因送达有缺陷的通知而导致的潜在驱逐程序中证明偏见的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
GENETIC DUTIES. Functional Corporate Knowledge THE GENETIC INFORMATION NONDISCRIMINATION ACT AT AGE 10: GINA'S CONTROVERSIAL ASSERTION THAT DATA TRANSPARENCY PROTECTS PRIVACY AND CIVIL RIGHTS. Prosecuting Poverty, Criminalizing Care Pereira's Aftershocks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1