Niz-Chavez v. Garland
Overview
Overview
The Supreme Court addressed a critical procedural question in immigration removal proceedings: whether the government's service of an initial Notice to Appear, a charging document required to begin removal proceedings, that lacks a hearing date and time suffices to cut off a noncitizen's ability to seek cancellation of removal based on ten years of continuous physical presence, or whether only a complete, date-bearing notice can stop the ten-year clock.
The Facts
Facts
Agusto Niz-Chavez received a multi-document Notice to Appear that initially lacked the time and place of his removal hearing. Information provided in a later, separate notice of hearing. The government argued these two documents together constituted the required NTA and triggered the 'stop-time' rule under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1), which cuts off an immigrant's accrual of continuous residence when a notice to appear is served. Niz-Chavez argued an NTA missing time-and-place information is legally defective, and his ten years of continuous presence was not stopped.
The Issue
Issue
Whether a notice to appear that is defective because it omits the time and place of the removal hearing, with that information supplied in a later separate document, nevertheless triggers the stop-time rule under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1), stopping accrual of the continuous physical presence required for cancellation of removal.
The Rules
Rule
8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1) provides that an alien's continuous presence is 'deemed to end' when the alien is served with a 'notice to appear under section 1229(a).' 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) specifies that the NTA must include the time and place of the hearing. Pereira v. Sessions (2018) held that a deficient NTA lacking time and place could not trigger the stop-time rule. The question in Niz-Chavez was whether cure by a later-issued hearing notice satisfies the statutory requirement.
The Application
Analysis
When the government served Niz-Chavez with a Notice to Appear lacking the time and place of his removal hearing, supplying that information in a separate subsequent document, it violated 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1)'s requirement that a complete, single NTA document trigger the stop-time rule. The statute demands one binding instrument containing all required information, not a piecemeal assembly of notices issued at different times. The Court held that splitting the statutory requirements across documents could not cure the deficiency, as the law contemplates a unitary charging document that apprises the noncitizen of essential hearing details from the outset. Accordingly, Niz-Chavez's continuous physical presence was never stopped, preserving his eligibility for cancellation of removal.
The Conclusion
Decided April 29, 2021. The Court held 6-3 that a stop-time NTA under § 1229b(d)(1) must be a single document that includes the required information - time, date, and place of the hearing - and that piecemeal service of the required information across two documents does not satisfy the statutory requirement. An incomplete NTA cannot be later 'cured' by a separate hearing notice. The ruling had far-reaching consequences for many immigrants' eligibility for cancellation of removal.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support