Whether the immigration court lacked authority to remove Mr. Castruita-Escobedo because he was not served a notice to appear with a hearing time

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Anastacio Castruita-Escobedo, 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. Castruita-Escobedo 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)@). Mr. Castruita-Escobedo 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. Castruita-Escobedo 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 ANASTACIO CASTRUITA-ESCOBEDO, Petitioner, Vv. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Petitioner Anastacio Castruita-Escobedo 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 June 25, 2020.