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

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Luis Fernando Ramirez 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 Ramirez for illegal reentry based on that putative removal order. The district court denied Ramirez’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 Ramirez 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 § 1826(d) unconstitutional? No. In the Supreme Court of the United States LUIS FERNANDO RAMIREZ, Petitioner, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Petitioner, Luis Fernando Ramirez 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 March 6, 2020.