Barton v. Barr, Att'y. Gen.

Summarized by:

  • Court: U.S. Supreme Court Certiorari Granted
  • Area(s) of Law: Immigration
  • Date Filed: April 22, 2019
  • Case #: 18-725
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: 904 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2018)
  • Full Text Opinion

Whether a lawfully admitted permanent resident who is not seeking admission to the United States can be “render[ed] . . . inadmissible” for the purposes of the stop-time rule, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1).

Petitioner is a lawfully admitted permanent resident who entered the United States in 1989. In 1996, Petitioner was arrested and charged with aggravated assault, criminal damage to property, and first-degree possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. In 2007 and 2008, Petitioner was arrested for drug possession. Petitioner has committed no offenses since and is the father to four U.S. citizens. Respondent served Petitioner with notice to appear and initiated removal proceedings following Petitioner’s 2008 arrest. Petitioner applied for cancellation of removal and Respondent objected, arguing that the 1996 arrest triggered the “stop-time rule,” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1), and Petitioner was therefore a few months short of the necessary seven years presence. The Eleventh Circuit held that Petitioner’s 1996 offense rendered Petitioner inadmissible for purposes of the rule. This is consistent with decisions in the Second, Third, and Fifth Circuits. In line with the Ninth Circuit, Petitioner argues that as he was a lawfully admitted permanent resident who was not seeking admission at the time of the 1996 offense, he could not be rendered inadmissible. Petitioner argues that Respondent would have to charge Petitioner with deportability. Further, Petitioner asserts that resolving the circuit split is very important as it has a “profound impact on aliens and their families.” Finally, Petitioner argues that the Eleventh Circuit’s decision is wrong.

Advanced Search

Back to Top