Notice to Appear: How to Read Form I-862 and Evaluate the Charges

A Notice to Appear is Form I-862. It is the charging document used in removal proceedings conducted under INA §240. DHS prepares and serves the document. When DHS files the charging document with the immigration court, the case comes within the court process described by the governing regulations.

The NTA performs two different functions that should not be confused. First, it gives notice that DHS is seeking removal. Second, it states the factual allegations and legal charges on which DHS intends to proceed. The form therefore functions much more like a charging document than a final decision.

EOIR describes the facts listed on an NTA as allegations. The statutory reasons DHS believes support removal are called charges. A charge normally cites a particular provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, such as a ground of inadmissibility under INA §212 or a ground of deportability under INA §237.

An NTA should be reviewed line by line. Small factual errors can be unimportant in one case and central in another. A wrong date of admission, an incorrect status, or an inaccurate description of a conviction can affect whether the statutory charge actually fits.

The most useful review compares the NTA against independent records rather than memory alone. Useful records may include passports, I-94 records, immigrant or nonimmigrant visas, approval notices, green cards, prior applications, USCIS decisions, criminal dispositions, plea documents, and prior immigration court records.

A factual allegation and a legal charge do different work. An allegation might state that a respondent was admitted in a particular status, remained beyond an authorized period, committed specified conduct, or was convicted under a particular criminal statute. The charge then asserts that those facts satisfy a statutory ground of removability.

That distinction is essential because an allegation can be factually accurate without proving the charge. Conversely, one inaccurate allegation may be legally significant if the charge depends on that particular fact. A criminal removal charge, for example, may turn on the statute of conviction, the statutory elements, the date of admission, the date of the offense, the maximum possible sentence, or whether several convictions arose from a single scheme.

For a respondent charged with deportability, DHS generally bears the burden of proving deportability as charged by clear and convincing evidence. Different burden rules apply to arriving respondents and to people charged as present without admission or parole. This is one reason the charging theory and immigration history should be identified before deciding how to plead.

EOIR's current Policy Manual states that removal proceedings begin when DHS files the Notice to Appear with the immigration court after it has been served on the respondent. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. §1003.14 likewise provides that proceedings commence when the charging document is filed with the immigration court.

This means a person can possess a signed NTA even though the court has not yet received or accepted the charging document. In that situation, an EOIR case search may not yet display an active court case. EOIR refers to some circumstances in which an initial hearing has been scheduled but DHS has not filed the NTA as a failure to prosecute.

A respondent should not assume that a missing online case record means the NTA has disappeared. DHS may file the document later. The practical questions are whether DHS has filed it, which court now has the case, what hearing has been scheduled, and whether any later court notice has been issued.

INA §239(a)(1) describes information that written notice is to contain, including the time and place of proceedings. Some NTAs nevertheless have been issued without an initial date or time, followed by a later Notice of Hearing.

The legal consequence depends on the issue being litigated. Pereira v. Sessions and Niz-Chavez v. Garland are especially important to the cancellation stop time rule. Matter of Fernandes separately treats the time and place requirement as a claim processing rule and generally requires a respondent to raise an objection before pleadings close.

The Supreme Court's decision in Campos-Chaves v. Garland held that a later statutory hearing notice can satisfy the notice requirement relevant to rescission of an in absentia order even though the earlier NTA lacked time or place information. The BIA's 2026 decision in Matter of Lopez-Orellana further holds that the objection to a noncompliant NTA belongs to the respondent and is forfeited if not timely raised. If the respondent received adequate notice of the missed hearing and DHS establishes removability, the Immigration Judge should proceed in absentia rather than terminate solely because the NTA was noncompliant.

Under 8 C.F.R. §1240.10, the immigration judge addresses the factual allegations and charges and requires the respondent to plead to the NTA. The respondent states whether the factual allegations are admitted or denied and whether removability under the charge is admitted or contested.

Admissions can have substantial consequences. The regulation permits the immigration judge to determine that removability has been established through the respondent's admissions when no unresolved issue of law or fact remains. The same regulation states that when removability is contested, evidence may be received on the unresolved issues and facts that were admitted need not be proved again.

This is why a respondent should understand the legal relevance of each allegation before treating pleadings as a routine formality. An allegation about the date of admission might affect a CIMT charge. An allegation about a conviction might omit the precise subsection. An allegation about status might not account for a later extension, change, adjustment, or other event in the immigration record.

Contesting a charge is also different from denying every fact. Some facts may be accurate but insufficient to establish removability. Other allegations may be irrelevant to the dispositive legal issue. Effective pleadings identify the real dispute rather than creating unnecessary factual disputes.

Yes. The regulations permit DHS to lodge additional or substituted factual allegations and charges in writing during the proceeding. The respondent must be served with the additional material and must have an opportunity to address it.

This matters when the original theory changes after DHS obtains a criminal record, reviews an immigration file, or identifies another statutory ground. A case should not be evaluated only from the first version of the NTA if DHS later files additional charging documents or written amendments.

The record should therefore be monitored throughout the case. The operative charging theory at an individual hearing may be different from the theory that appeared when the first NTA was served.

INA §239 requires address and telephone information and requires changes to be reported. Address compliance is a substantive notice issue because later hearing notices and other court documents are sent using the official record.

In Matter of Diji, 30 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 2026) (en banc), the Board held that DHS mailing an NTA by regular mail may rely on the most recent address the noncitizen has provided. For in absentia purposes, the Board also held that written notice is sufficient if mailed to the most recent address the person provided, including an address provided before issuance of the NTA. Diji overruled Matter of G-Y-R-.

That rule makes the pre-NTA address history important. A motion based on lack of notice should therefore collect benefit applications, address-change filings, NTA and hearing-notice envelopes, returned mail, EOIR records, USCIS records, and evidence of when each address was provided. Whether a particular mailing was effective remains a fact-specific question under the governing notice rules.

A person who moves should also determine which agencies require separate address updates. Updating an address with USCIS does not necessarily substitute for satisfying EOIR's immigration court requirements after proceedings are underway.

EOIR's public guidance specifically tells respondents who believe the NTA contains an error to tell the immigration judge. The significance of the error depends on what is wrong.

Identity or biographical error

A spelling problem may be easy to correct, while an error involving citizenship, nationality, identity, or an A-Number can be much more significant.

Entry or admission error

An incorrect entry date, admission classification, or assertion that a person entered without inspection can alter the applicable burden and statutory charge.

Criminal record error

Criminal charges require particular care. An arrest is not automatically the same as a conviction, and the immigration consequences often depend on the exact state or federal statute, subsection, disposition, sentence, and record of conviction.

Legal charge error

Even if the basic events are accurate, the cited deportability or inadmissibility provision may not fit the facts. The analysis should identify every statutory element and compare it with what DHS can actually prove.

The immediate goal is to preserve the record and determine the procedural posture. A practical review normally includes the following steps:

1. Keep a complete copy of every page of the NTA, including the certificate and service information.
2. Confirm the A-Number, name, address, citizenship, and other identifying information.
3. Separate the factual allegations from the statutory charges.
4. Compare the alleged admission and status history against passports, I-94 records, visas, approval notices, and USCIS records.
5. Obtain certified criminal dispositions and relevant plea or charging records if a criminal ground is alleged.
6. Check whether EOIR has an active case and whether a hearing has been scheduled.
7. Keep the immigration court informed of any required address change.
8. Do not assume that an allegation should be admitted merely because it sounds generally accurate.
9. Identify any applications for relief that may become relevant if removability is established.

The next stage of the case is discussed in the INA §240 Removal Proceedings guide. The underlying statutory deportability provisions are organized in the INA §237 Grounds of Deportability guide.

Form I-862 contains factual allegations about the respondent and one or more legal charges explaining why DHS believes the respondent is removable. Those are different propositions. A respondent may admit an undisputed biographical fact while denying an alleged entry date, conviction fact, status violation, or legal conclusion of removability.

Before pleadings, compare the NTA with primary records such as passports, I-94 records, adjustment approvals, criminal judgments, and prior immigration files. An inaccurate allegation should not become true merely because it appears on a government charging document.

EOIR explains that an NTA may contain the date and time of the first hearing. If that information is not on the NTA, the immigration court can issue a later Notice of Hearing. Current law treats the consequences of missing time-and-place information differently depending on the issue being litigated, including claim processing, stop time, and in absentia notice.

Keep every version of the NTA and every hearing notice. The complete notice chain can become important years later if there is a dispute over service, a missed hearing, cancellation stop time, or whether an objection was timely raised.

A respondent in removal proceedings has an obligation to keep EOIR informed of current contact information through the procedures required by the immigration court. Moving without updating the court can create serious notice problems and can weaken a later claim that a hearing notice was not received.

Keep copies and filing confirmations for every address update. Updating USCIS, the Postal Service, or another DHS component is not necessarily the same as updating the immigration court.

Current BIA law treats important NTA requirements as claim-processing rules rather than automatic jurisdictional defects. That makes timing important: counsel should identify the exact defect, state the objection clearly, and request the remedy supported by current law before making unnecessary concessions.

A defective NTA does not automatically erase later admissions or concessions. Pleading strategy should therefore distinguish service, statutory compliance, factual allegations, and the legal removability charge.