Niz-Chavaz, Agusto v. Barr, Att’y Gen.

Whether, to serve notice in accordance with section 1229(a) and trigger the stop-time rule, the government must serve a specific document that includes all the information identified in section 1229(a), or whether the government can serve that information over the course of as many documents and as much time as it chooses.

Petitioner came to the United States from Guatemala in 2005. In 2013, notice was served to Petitioner with a date for a removal hearing, where he challenged removal, and in 2017 a merits hearing was held. Petitioner argued that he had been in the United States for 12 years and was not eligible for removal. Additionally, Petitioner argued that the “stop time rule” did not apply to him as the requirements for section 1229(a) were not met as there was missing information from the notice. The Immigration Judge, however, denied his arguments. Petitioner appealed the denial, but the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the judge’s decision. Petitioner argues that all information should be in the notice in order for the government to use the “stop time rule,” and that this was the intention of Congress while drafting section 1229(a).