Minnesota Law students from the Federal Immigration Litigation Clinic and the Civil Rights Appellate Clinic built a case in preparation for oral argument at the U.S. Supreme Court

Has a noncitizen truly been notified of their immigration-related removal hearing if the federal government fails to follow its statutory requirements to provide written notice? In January, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the question of proper notification and whether the federal government may remove noncitizens in absentia if they were not duly informed of their hearing date.

The justices heard arguments that were researched and drafted by Minnesota Law students and professors. Students from the Federal Immigration Litigation Clinic and the Civil Rights Appellate Clinic began working on Campos-Chaves v. Garland in late summer 2023 after the Supreme Court granted certiorari. The court consolidated the Campos-Chaves case with two other cases, Garland v. Singh and Garland v. Mendez-Colín.

A ruling for the noncitizens could reopen immigration proceedings for numerous people who were ordered removed in absentia, despite not receiving a compliant notice to appear, says Nadia Anguiano ’17, associate clinical professor of law and director of the Federal Immigration Litigation Clinic. If cases are reopened, individuals then could request forms of immigration relief. One possibility is cancellation of their removal, based on factors including length of time living in the United States and the harm their removal would cause a qualifying relative, such as a U.S.-citizen family member.

Read the full article in Minnesota Law magazine.

Nadia Anguiano-Wehde, Immigration Advocacy Fellow and Visiting Assistant Professor, Clinics

Nadia Anguiano ’17

Associate Clinical Professor of Law
Elizabeth Bentley

Elizabeth Bentley

Visiting Assistant Professor of Law