This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The Supreme Court held that the phrase “notice to appear” in the immigration statute requires a single written notice document, not multiple documents.
The case turned on how the statutory language affects whether a non‑citizen receives proper notice for cancellation‑of‑removal eligibility.
Background and question before the Court
The government ordered the removal of petitioner Agusto Niz‑Chavez and sent him a first document with the charges, followed two months later by a second document giving the time and place of his hearing.
According to Justice KAVANAUGH, the Court asked whether the written notice required by § 1229(a) was satisfied by the two documents that the government had sent.
What each side argues
Government
The government argues that the statute does not contemplate multiple documents and that requiring a single notice would unfairly limit its ability to provide timely hearing information.
Attorney David Zimmer argues that the statutory text and the IIRIRA changes make clear that a “notice to appear” is a specific document, not an abstract concept.
Petitioner
The petitioner argues that EOIR issues hearing notices as the adjudicator of the charges, and that combining the NTA form with the hearing notice would be administratively difficult for DHS.
Respondent (Mr. Yang)
According to Mr. YANG (Respondent), according to Mr. YANG (Respondent), mr. Yang, citing the Board of Immigration Appeals, maintains that the written‑notice requirement can be satisfied by two documents: an NTA form and a separate hearing notice.
According to Mr. YANG, he also argued that the essential question is whether notice is adequately conveyed, noting prior case law where a missing signature did not invalidate a notice.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Kavanaugh asked why the case does not end if the client received written notice of everything required by § 1229(a).
According to Justice Kavanaugh, justice Kavanaugh sought clarification on whether, if the immigration judge rejected cancellation of removal, the removal would still be discretionary rather than mandatory.
Justice Barrett asked whether DHS could issue notices to appear with estimated dates after a non‑citizen is already in detention.
What the Court decided
The majority held that interpreting the phrase “a notice to appear” to require a single notice means the statute mandates one written document, not multiple.
Justice Kavanaugh dissented, arguing that the statutory phrase “written notice” does not require a single document and that the Court’s decision will not meaningfully benefit non‑citizens while imposing significant costs on the immigration system.
Why it matters
The Court’s interpretation determines whether a non‑citizen can satisfy the written‑notice requirement with a single document or with multiple documents, directly affecting eligibility for cancellation of removal.
Congressional intent, as reflected in the statutory text, requires written notice to be in writing and served personally or by mail, underscoring the importance of the notice’s form.
According to Justice Kavanaugh, the dissent warns that the decision may increase administrative costs and provide little benefit to non‑citizens who have already received notice.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 14643dca634e5ab78355-r1-dd9c73c93a20ee79.pdforal argument transcript
- 182a742715d3734a396b-r1-52e1c2d11acf20ed.pdfopinion
Guide generated September 28, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.