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)(i). 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?

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