Whether the government must comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(G) by providing a single notice document containing all required information, including the time and place of proceedings, or whether the government may rely on § 1229(a)(2) to provide subsequent notice of the new time and place

QUESTION PRESENTED | In order for the government to “initiatle]” immigration removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(G), “written notice” (referred to as a “notice to appear”) “shall be given” to the noncitizen, containing all required information, including the “time and place” of removal proceedings Miz Chavez | v. Garland, 141 S.Ct. 1474, 1479, 1486 (2021). When the government serves an NTA that does not contain time-and-place information, it “exceedls] its statutory license.” Jd. at 1486. This Court has granted certiorari in Singh v. Garland, 24 F.4th 1315, 1318-21 (9th Cir. 2022), No. 22-884 (June 380, 2023), and Campos-Chaves v. GarJand, 54 F.4th 314, 315 (5th Cir. 2022), No.22-674 (June 80, 2028), where the respondents were removed in absentia, to consider whether the government must comply with Paragraph (1) of § 1229(a) by providing a single notice document containing all required information, including the “time and place” of proceedings, or whether the government may alternatively rely on Paragraph (2) of § 1229(a), which requires notice of the “new time and place” “in the case of any change or postponement in the time and place of such proceedings,” by serving a subsequent document containing that information. The question presented is: If the government serves an initial notice document that does not include the “time and place” of proceedings, followed by an additional document containing that information, has the government “initiatled]” removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229, i such that an immigration court has statutory license to enter a removal order? ii |