Whether the immigration court lacked authority to remove the petitioner because he was not served a notice to appear that had a hearing time

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Victor Mora-Galindo was ordered removed by an immigration judge after being served a document titled “notice to appear” that did not tell him when to appear for removal proceedings, contrary to a statute that requires this information. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(G)G). Here, the Government relied on that removal to prosecute Mora for illegal reentry based on that putative removal order. The district court denied Mora’s motion to dismiss the indictment and found him guilty, and the court of appeals affirmed the conviction. The questions presented are: 1. Did the immigration court lack authority to remove Mora 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?! 1 These same issues are presented in a pending petition for writ of certiorari in Pedroza-Rocha v. United States, No. 19-6588. No. _ In the Supreme Court of the United States VICTOR MANUEL MORA-GALINDO, Petitioner, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Petitioner, Victor Manuel Mora-Galindo 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 October 22, 2019.