Did the immigration court lack authority to remove Mr. Pedroza because he was not served a notice to appear that had a hearing time?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Carlos Javier Pedroza-Rocha, like many noncitizen defendants, was ordered removed by an immigration judge after being served a document titled “notice to appear” that did not tell Mr. Pedroza when to appear for removal proceedings. The statute requires that noncitizens facing removal proceedings be served a notice to appear with a hearing time. 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(G)@. The government is trying to prosecute Mr. Pedroza for illegal reentry based on that putative removal order. The questions presented are: 1. Did the immigration court lack authority to remove Mr. Pedroza because he was not served a notice to appear that had a hearing time? 2. In an illegal reentry prosecution, can the defendant attack the jurisdictional basis for a removal order outside the 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) requirements for a collateral attack? If not, is § 1326(d) unconstitutional? 3. Is the § 1326(d)(1) requirement to exhaust administrative remedies excused when the appeal waiver is not considered or intelligent? If not, is § 1326(d) unconstitutional? No. _ In the Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 2019 CARLOS JAVIER PEDROZA-ROCHA, Petitioner, Vv. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Petitioner, Carlos Javier Pedroza-Rocha asks that a writ of certiorari issue to review the opinion and judgment entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on August 8, 2019.