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

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Milton Mayorga, 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. Mayorga 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)(i). The government prosecuted Mr. Mayorga for illegal reentry based on that putative removal order. The questions presented are: 1. Did the immigration court lack authority to remove Mr. Mayorga 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? No. — In the Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 2019 MILTON MAYORGA, Petitioner, Vv. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Petitioner, Milton Mayorga 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 December 21, 2019.