Defective NTAs After Lopez-Ticas: How Recent BIA Rulings Reshape Removal Proceedings
A Notice to Appear (NTA) is the formal document that starts removal proceedings in immigration court. For years, missing information—such as the hearing date or time—could be grounds for termination of a case. In 2025, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued a landmark decision, Matter of Wendi Del Carmen Lopez-Ticas, 29 I&N Dec. 90 (BIA 2025), that changed the rules for everyone involved. This decision, combined with important 2024 rulings such as Matter of R-T-P-, Matter of Aguilar Hernandez, and Matter of Larios-Gutierrez de Pablo, redefines how defective NTAs are handled.
The Core Holding: Matter of Wendi Del Carmen Lopez-Ticas, 29 I&N Dec. 90 (BIA 2025)
The BIA ruled that defective NTAs—those missing time or date information—do not automatically terminate proceedings. Key takeaways include:
- Timely Objections Are Mandatory: Challenges to defects must be raised before the close of pleadings (usually at the first or second hearing).
- Claim-Processing Rule: Missing time or date is a procedural flaw, not a jurisdictional error.
- Retroactive Application: The timeliness standard established in Matter of Fernandes applies to all cases, even those initiated before this decision.
- Binding Concessions: Respondents are bound by counsel’s admissions unless egregious circumstances (such as ineffective assistance of counsel) are proven.
2024 Precedents Shaping the Landscape
Matter of R-T-P-, 28 I&N Dec. 828 (BIA 2024)
- Remedying Defects: Immigration Judges may amend NTAs by writing in missing time or date upon DHS motion, provided the NTA becomes a single document (complying with Niz-Chavez v. Garland) and the respondent receives at least 10 days’ notice of the new hearing.
- No Prejudice Requirement: Respondents do not need to prove harm from defective NTAs if they object timely.
Matter of Aguilar Hernandez, 28 I&N Dec. 774 (BIA 2024)
- Form I-261 Invalid for Cure: DHS cannot fix defective NTAs by filing a Form I-261 (supplemental notice). The Supreme Court’s Niz-Chavez “single document” rule prevails.
- Strategic Takeaway: Object early—DHS must refile a compliant NTA or seek Immigration Judge amendment.
Matter of Larios-Gutierrez de Pablo, 28 I&N Dec. 868 (BIA 2024)
- Retroactive Application: The Fernandes timeliness rule (object pre-pleadings) applies retroactively. Older cases cannot revive forfeited objections.
Procedural Roadmap for Practitioners
Step 1: Review NTA Immediately
Use tools like the following Python code to flag issues:
def check_nta(nta):
required = ['date', 'time', 'place']
missing = [field for field in required if not nta.get(field)]
if missing:
return "Object immediately: Missing " + ", ".join(missing)
return "NTA appears complete"This code checks for missing required fields in the NTA. If any are missing, it prompts you to object immediately.
Step 2: Object Before Pleadings Close
- Failure = Forfeiture: Late objections are barred (per Larios-Gutierrez de Pablo).
- Remedy Options:
- Immigration Judge amendment (per R-T-P-).
- DHS refiling (per Aguilar Hernandez).
Step 3: Document Strategy
Not objecting to accrue physical presence time for cancellation of removal is risky but permissible if documented.
Impact on Key Stakeholders
| Stakeholder | Rights/Responsibilities |
|---|---|
| Respondents | Must act fast; bound by counsel’s decisions unless egregious circumstances are proven. |
| DHS | Can seek Immigration Judge amendments but cannot use Form I-261 (per Aguilar Hernandez). |
| Immigration Judges | Must enforce timely objections and ensure amendments comply with R-T-P-’s single-document rule. |
Critical Takeaways
- Defective NTAs are not automatic tickets to termination anymore.
- You must object to errors before pleadings close, or you lose your chance.
- Courts can fix paperwork errors if you object on time, but late objections do not work.
- What your lawyer says in court usually binds you, unless you can prove a serious problem.
- These rules apply to all cases, even those that started before 2025.
Conclusion: The New Era of NTA Litigation
The 2024–2025 rulings create a procedural tightrope:
- For Respondents: Timeliness is everything. Delay = forfeiture.
- For DHS: Amendments are possible but constrained by Niz-Chavez and Aguilar Hernandez.
- For Courts: Efficiency is prioritized, but due process requires strict adherence to claim-processing rules.
By integrating Lopez-Ticas with 2024 precedents, practitioners can navigate this evolving landscape with precision—ensuring compliance while zealously advocating for clients’ rights.
