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 · Updated October 17, 2026

Decision: Pereira v. Sessions, 585 U.S. 198 (2018).

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.