The U.S. Supreme court agreed to hear a case, the Niz-Chavez v. Garland, Attorney General, regarding Notices to Appear and the stop-time rule.
Background
Notices to Appear are usually issued when a person is about to be deported from the country. However, there are certain cases where people who are not legal permanent residents may be granted discretionary relief from the government to avoid deportation. This discretionary relief is called “Cancellation of Removal” and is requested in court. One of the factors considered in Cancellation of Removal is whether the person is able to establish a continuous presence in the country for at least 10 years. Notices to Appear are a significant consideration in whether a person can establish s/he has continuous presence in the country for at least 10 years because once a Notice to Appear is issued, the “stop-time” rule is invoked. The stop-time rule means that the person stops accruing presence in the country. Therefore, the date a person is issued a Notice to Appear is the last date a person can be considered for establishing presence in the country.
Issue
In practice, people who are being considered for deportation generally receive multiple Notices to Appear. This means that the relevant information regarding the charges against him/her and the time and place at which the removal proceedings will be held are usually separated into several Notices to Appear. This poses an issue in determining which Notice to Appear invokes the stop-time rule.
Supreme Court Case and Decision
In the Supreme Court case, Niz-Chavez v. Garland, Attorney General, it was argued that a Notice to Appear must contain all relevant information, meaning that the last Notice to Appear issued should be the one used in invoking the stop-time rule.
On April 29, 2021, in a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court sided with Niz-Chavez, further deciding that the government is required to issue a single Notice to Appear containing all the relevant information surrounding a person’s removal.
Implications
This ruling first provides clarity to those seeking Cancellation of Removal in that it provides one specific date to determine eligibility of the 10-year continuous presence requirement in accordance with the stop-time requirement. It also provides a benefit to those who are currently in removal proceedings to use the last Notice to Appear s/he was issued in determining eligibility of the continuous presence requirement.
The determination that the government is now to issue a single Notice to Appear moving forward provides further clarity in the removal proceedings process and helps mitigate the risk of a person missing subsequent Notices to Appear.
While the decision does provide hope for those seeking Cancellation of Removal, it should be noted that Cancellation of Removal is not guaranteed.
If you are seeking Cancellation of Removal or are looking for other expert attorney advice, contact us at ILBSG. We are here to provide the right advice for your immigration needs.