The consolidated cases involved in-absentia removal orders and later notices that supplied the hearing information missing from the initial notices to appear. The Supreme Court held that a later notice can satisfy the relevant notice requirement; a person who received proper notice under either paragraph of 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) cannot obtain automatic rescission merely because the first notice was incomplete. The result was mixed: No. 22-674 was affirmed, No. 22-884 was reversed as to Mendez-Colón, and the Singh judgment was vacated and remanded.