Whether a statutory requirement for initiation of an enforcement action is a claim-processing rule or constrains the government's statutory license

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In order to initiate immigration removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a), the government must serve a single notice to appear (NTA) containing all required information, including the time and place of removal proceedings. § 1229(a)(1)(G); Miz Chavez v. Garland, 141 S.Ct. 1474 (2021). “An enforcement action must .. . rely on a legislative rule, which (to be valid) must go through notice and comment.” Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S.Ct. 2400, 2420 (2019). The questions presented are: 1. Whether a statutory requirement imposed on the Executive Branch for initiation of an enforcement action may be characterized as a “claimprocessing” rule, and if so, whether 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(G) is a “claim-processing” rule that the government may choose not to follow, or whether § 1229(a)(1)(G) instead constrains the government’s statutory license to proceed. 2. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1) governs the required contents of a “notice to appear,” as the Seventh Circuit has held, or whether the government may instead rely on a conflicting regulatory definition, as the majority of circuits have held, and whether the majority view directly conflicts with Niz-Chavez. 3. Whether the government’s justifications for omitting time-and-place information from a “notice to appear’—including that 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) is a “claim-processing” rule, and that the regulatory definition is invalid legislative rules that have not gone through notice and comment.