Original Date AnnouncedDecember 21, 2018
Pursuant to the Director's Policy Memo 19-08, EOIR will now provide dates and times to DHS for use on Notices to Appear (NTAs) for certain non-detained cases, in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in Pereira v. Sessions. The memo states that the three DHS components that can issue NTAs -- CBP, ICE, and USCIS -- all have access to EOIR's Interactive Scheduling System (ISS).
EOIR will now reject all NTAs with facially incorrect dates (i.e., falling on a holiday, weekend, or date or time when the assigned court is not open). If an NTA is not filed with the immigration court in time for the date and time of the hearing it references, EOIR will classify that case as a "failure to prosecute." With respect to any case filed within 10 days of the date and time on the NTA, it is left to the IJ's discretion whether the case will go forward per the NTA or will be reset.
[ID #198]EOIR Policy Memorandum (PM 19-08): Acceptance of Notices to Appear and Use of Interactive Scheduling System
Effective DateJanuary 31, 2019
Subsequent Trump-Era and Court Action(s)
August 31, 2018
Matter of Bermudez-Cota, 27 I&N Dec. 441 (BIA 2018)
On August 31, 2018, the BIA issued Matter of Bermudez-Cota, which distinguishes Pereira v. Sessions and holds that NTAs issued without hearing dates or locations for initial removal hearings do vest the immigration courts with jurisdiction over removal proceedings so long as a notice of hearing with a date and location is later sent to the non-citizen respondent.View Document
September 23, 2021
2021.09.23 Matter of Arambula-Bravo 28 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2021)
On September 23, 2021, the BIA issued Matter of Arambula-Bravo, which followed the Board's previous decision in Matter of Bermudez-Cota, holding that NTAs that lack details on the time and place of a non-citizen's initial removal hearing do not deprive the Immigration Court of jurisdiction over removal proceedings. The decision distinguishes Niz-Chavez v. Garland, reasoning that the Supreme Court's holding in Niz-Chavez addressed only the stop time rule, not the Immigration Court's jurisdiction over removal proceedings.View Document