- Court: United States Supreme Court
- Area(s) of Law: Immigration
- Date Filed: June 21, 2018
- Case #: 17-459
- Judge(s)/Court Below: SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, KAGAN, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a concurring opinion. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioner arrived in the United States in the year 2000 and overstayed his visa. In 2006, he received a “notice to appear” for removal proceedings that did not specify a time and place. In 2007, the Immigration Court mailed another notice specifying a time and place, but it was returned undeliverable. The Immigration Court ordered Petitioner removed and he was detained in 2013. Petitioner argued that he was eligible for cancellation of removal because he was continuously present in the U.S. for more than 10 years, and the 2006 notice did not trigger the stop-time rule because it did not contain the requisite time-and-place information. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied Petitioner’s cancellation of removal request, holding that the 2006 notice did trigger the stop-time rule. The First Circuit found that the BIA’s interpretation of the stop-time rule was permissible. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the stop-time rule is not triggered by a “notice to appear” that does not include time-and-place information. The Supreme Court reasoned that the language of the statute is unambiguous, and Section 1229(a) clearly defines a “notice to appear” as a “written notice” that specifies, at a minimum, the time and place of removal proceedings. Therefore, the stop-time rule was not triggered by the deficient 2006 notice. REVERSED AND REMANDED.