Has the respondent received a Notice to Appear (NTA) — and is the immigration court hearing scheduled?
The NTA defines the entire case: the charges of removability, the alleged factual basis, the date of the master calendar hearing, and which immigration court has jurisdiction. A defective NTA — missing time and place under *Pereira v. Sessions* (2018) and *Niz-Chavez v. Garland* (2021) — can be the entire defense. A late or missed master calendar appearance results in an *in absentia* removal order that requires a 90-day motion to reopen under INA § 240(b)(5)(C).
Context & Examples
Real example — Patricia, Stockton. Patricia received a 2019 NTA listing only "a date and time to be set." She moved to Stockton in 2021, never received the hearing notice mailed to her old address, and was ordered removed in absentia in 2022. ICE picked her up in 2024. We filed a motion to terminate under Niz-Chavez the same week — the original NTA was a single defective document and could not vest jurisdiction. EOIR terminated. She walked out of detention 11 days after we filed.
Horror story — same fact pattern, no attorney. A pro se respondent in 2023 received the same defective NTA. He appeared at every hearing pro se, did not raise Niz-Chavez, applied only for cancellation of removal, lost on the discretionary factors, and was deported. We could have terminated his case at the second master calendar with a 4-page motion.
Why this matters: Niz-Chavez objections are waived if not raised before the merits hearing. The most powerful defense in modern removal practice expires the moment you start litigating the substantive case.
Sources