Here's a brief thread on the case the Supreme Court just agreed to hear next term. It involves something called "cancellation of removal" for undocumented immigrants (those who aren't LPRs, or Lawful Permanent Residents), the "stop time rule," and a 2018 case Pereira v. Sessions.
Non-LPR cancellation of removal is a path to citizenship available to undocumented immigrants in immigration court who've been present in the US for at least 10 years, and whose deportation would cause "extreme and exceptionally unusual hardship" to a US citizen spouse or child.
The 10 years requirement for non-LPR cancellation is a bit complicated—because the "clock" counting towards 10 years can be "stopped" in two scenarios:
(1) by committing a disqualifying crime.
(2) if the government serves a person with a "Notice to Appear" in immigration court.
(1) by committing a disqualifying crime.
(2) if the government serves a person with a "Notice to Appear" in immigration court.
This case is about the 2nd way to "stop the clock"—when the government serves a Notice to Appear ("NTA").
An NTA is like an immigration court indictment. It formally starts the removal process.
By law it must include the "time and place at which the proceedings will be held."
An NTA is like an immigration court indictment. It formally starts the removal process.
By law it must include the "time and place at which the proceedings will be held."
Despite the requirement than an NTA include the "time and place," for decades the government filed NTAs with that information missing and "TBD" written instead.
In Pereira v. Sessions, the Supreme Court was asked: if an NTA *doesn't* have a time and date, does it stop the clock?
In Pereira v. Sessions, the Supreme Court was asked: if an NTA *doesn't* have a time and date, does it stop the clock?
As it turned out, no. In an 8-1 decision in 2018, the Supreme Court held that an NTA which just has "TBD" written on it where the "time and place" should go does NOT stop the clock.
This made many people eligible for relief where they previously weren't.
scotusblog.com/case-files/cas…
This made many people eligible for relief where they previously weren't.
scotusblog.com/case-files/cas…
Thousands of people were now eligible for relief because the government had been too lazy to include a "time and place" on NTAs.
The government wasn't happy, so they came up with a new theory—a "TBD NTA" followed by a hearing notice with a "time and place" should stop the clock.
The government wasn't happy, so they came up with a new theory—a "TBD NTA" followed by a hearing notice with a "time and place" should stop the clock.
So the question became: can you get around the stop-time rule's requirement to have a Notice to Appear which contains a "Time and Place" by serving two different documents: one labeled "Notice to Appear," and one labeled "Hearing Notice," which combined have the required info?
It's this question that the Supreme Court will decide in Niz-Chavez v. Barr. Whether "a Notice to Appear under section 1229a" can actually be read as "multiple documents which together satisfy the requirements for a Notice to Appear under section 1229a.
scotusblog.com/case-files/cas…
scotusblog.com/case-files/cas…
