- Court: United States Supreme Court
- Area(s) of Law: Immigration
- Date Filed: April 29, 2021
- Case #: 19-863
- Judge(s)/Court Below: GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, J., joined.
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioner was given notice of his immigration removal proceeding which required him to demonstrate “continuous presence” in the United States for at least ten years under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1). Petitioner received a notice with a description of the charges he faced and subsequently received an additional notice stating when and where to appear. On appeal, Petitioner argued that the government needed to send all relevant information in a single “notice to appear” in order to activate the “stop-time” rule under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(d)(1). Respondent argued that the government needed to send a notice of the charges to trigger the stop-time rule but also needed the flexibility to send the scheduling information as the dockets allowed. The Six Circuit held in favor of Respondent. “[T]he stop-time rule is triggered when the alien is served a notice to appear under section 1229(a).” The Court reversed and held that the language in Section (d)(1) used the definite singular meaning of “a” to describe the notice. The Court reasoned that congress intended to balance the statute upon amending the stop-time rule to avoid delay by long-term residents, but also to prevent the government from triggering the stop-time rule and delaying the hearing date. REVERSED.