Niz-Chavez v. Garland
Case 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.
BrynoDC Coverage 5 videos
The 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 Application
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.
No circuit court data for this case.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support