What happened
Wescley Pereira, a Brazilian citizen, entered the US on a visitor visa in 2000 and overstayed. In 2006, DHS served him an NTA without a date or time of hearing.
By 2007, Pereira had accrued 10+ years of continuous physical presence. He applied for cancellation of removal, but the IJ denied it, ruling the stop-time rule was triggered upon service of the NTA.
The BIA upheld the IJ. The First Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court took the case to resolve a circuit split.
The court's ruling
Justice Sotomayor wrote for a near-unanimous Court (Alito concurring separately). The Court held that the statute plainly requires the stop-time rule to be triggered by "a notice to appear under section 1229(a)."
Section 1229(a) mandates that an NTA include the time and place of the hearing. If those details are missing, the document does not meet the statutory definition and does not trigger the rule.
The Court rejected the BIA's position (Matter of Camarillo, 2016) that an NTA without date/place still triggered stop-time. The BIA's reading was deemed contrary to the "plain text" of the statute.
Why it matters
Pereira became a foundational precedent that supported thousands of motions to reopen nationwide. DHS had been systematically issuing defective NTAs, and this ruling made that practice vulnerable.
However, Pereira did not close every loophole — DHS and the BIA tried to narrow the ruling's reach, which eventually led to Niz-Chavez v. Garland (2021), cementing the position.
Pereira also matters beyond stop-time: courts began questioning jurisdiction itself if the NTA was defective.
What it means for you
Check your NTA: if the date and/or place of hearing is missing, you may have grounds for a motion to reopen, even if the case was closed long ago.
Pereira + Niz-Chavez work together. Pereira covered NTAs with no date at all; Niz-Chavez covered NTAs where the date arrived in a separate document.
Deadlines for motions to reopen are tight. If you have a defective NTA, don't wait — contact an attorney as soon as possible.
🏛️ Related courts
⚖️ Related judges
Attorney commentary
“Pereira is the precedent that literally changed my practice. Before 2018, we couldn't do anything about defective NTAs. After, we started filing motions to reopen en masse.”
“Important: Pereira doesn't help if you don't have 10 years of physical presence. But if you were on the edge — this could be your chance.”
Sources
⚠️ This material is educational and is not legal advice. Whether it applies to your case should be discussed with an attorney.