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

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Edwin Virgilio Gomez, 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. Gomez 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). Mr. Gomez was convicted of illegal reentry based on that putative removal order. The questions presented are: 1. Did the immigration court lack authority to remove Mr. Gomez 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, 2020 EDWIN VIRGILIO GOMEZ, Petitioner, Vv. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Petitioner Edwin Virgilio Gomez 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 May 12, 2020.