11th Cir.

Alex F. Ramirez v. U.S. Attorney General

June 22, 2026 ·25-12254 ·Per Curiam · By Raj Patel

The Eleventh Circuit denied a petition for review challenging a removal order based on a defective notice to appear. The court held that misidentifying a noncitizen's country of origin in the notice does not deprive the immigration court of jurisdiction.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 1:17

Background

Alex Ramirez sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order affirming an immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Ramirez argued the immigration courts lacked jurisdiction because the notice to appear incorrectly stated he was a native and citizen of El Salvador, when he is actually a native and citizen of Guatemala. He admitted to falsely claiming El Salvadorian citizenship when applying for temporary protected status in two thousand and one and providing false identification to obtain work authorization.

The court’s reasoning

The court explained that while the Immigration and Nationality Act requires a written notice to appear, neither the statute nor associated regulations establish jurisdictional rules. The court cited Perez-Sanchez v. U.S. Attorney General to clarify that noncompliance with content requirements in Section twelve hundred twenty-nine does not deprive the immigration court of jurisdiction. The court found the notice to appear was not fatally deficient for misidentifying Ramirez’s country of origin.

What it means going forward

Immigration courts retain jurisdiction over removal proceedings even if the notice to appear contains errors regarding the noncitizen’s country of origin.