Plain-English summary
Court clarifies when a noncitizen can be ordered removed in absentia if they miss their hearing
The Supreme Court in Garland v. Singh decided limits on in‑absentia removal orders under 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(5). The Court reversed and vacated portions of the Ninth Circuit’s rulings, clarifying when written notice to a noncitizen or their counsel satisfies statutory requirements for ordering removal in their absence.
Why this matters
This decision affects when immigration authorities can remove noncitizens without them being present. It clarifies what counts as adequate written notice (to the person or their lawyer) before an in‑absentia removal order can be entered, which affects procedural protections in deportation cases and opportunities to reopen cases where notice was lacking.
Who may feel it
- Noncitizens in removal (deportation) proceedings
- Immigration attorneys and legal representatives
- Immigration judges and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials
- Communities with large immigrant populations and organizations that provide immigration services
Key questions
- When does written notice under 8 U.S.C. 1229(a)(1) or (2) count as having been "provided" to a noncitizen or their counsel for purposes of entering an in‑absentia removal order under 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(5)?