Immigration · Primary-source case analysis

Pereira v. Sessions: A Notice Without Time or Place Does Not Stop Time

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published April 14, 2026

Pereira began the Supreme Court’s modern treatment of incomplete notices to appear by reading the stop-time statute together with the notice definition Congress supplied.

The incomplete notice

DHS served Wescley Pereira with a document directing him to appear at a time and date to be set later. A later hearing notice went to the wrong address, and an in absentia order followed. After reopening, Pereira sought cancellation based on more than ten years of continuous presence.

The stop-time rule’s cross-reference

Section 1229b(d)(1) ends continuous presence when the noncitizen is served a notice to appear under section 1229(a). That referenced provision defines the notice as written notice specifying, among other things, the time and place of the proceeding.

The holding

A document that omits the hearing’s time or place is not a notice to appear under section 1229(a) and does not trigger the stop-time rule. The Court relied on the statute’s plain text, context, and the notice’s practical function.

The scope of the decision

Pereira addressed cancellation’s stop-time rule. Other consequences of a defective notice—including in absentia reopening and adjudicatory authority—depend on their own statutory provisions and later decisions.

Key takeaways

• Compare the original notice with section 1229(a)(1)’s required contents.
• An omitted time or place defeats that document as a stop-time trigger.
• The procedural remedy must match the statutory issue.
• Complete service and address records remain essential.