Niz-Chavez v. Garland - 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021)

Rule:

True, the government can change the time and place if it must. As written, though, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 3009-546, allows the government to invoke the stop-time rule only if it furnishes the alien with a single compliant document explaining what it intends to do and when.

Facts:

The stop-time rule included in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) provided that the period of aliens’ continuous presence in the United States shall be deemed to end when the alien was served a notice to appear in a removal proceeding under §1229a. §1229b(d)(1). In the present case, the government ordered the removal of petitioner Agusto Niz-Chavez and sent him a document containing the charges against him. Two months later, it sent a second document, providing petitioner with the time and place of his hearing. The government contended that because the two documents collectively specified all statutorily required information for “a notice to appear,” petitioner’s continuous presence in the country stopped when he was served with the second document. 

Issue:

Could the government invoke the stop-time rule in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) by sending the two documents in question to the petitioner? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Court held that as written, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 3009-546, allowed the government to invoke the stop-time rule only if it furnished the alien with a single compliant document explaining what it intended to do and when because both 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229b(b)(1) and 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229(a)(1) referred to "a" notice to appear. According to the Court, the Congress’s decision to use the indefinite article “a” suggested it envisioned “a” single notice provided at a discrete time rather than a series of notices that collectively provide the required information. Moreover, the Court noted that the IIRIRA’s structure and history supported requiring the government to issue a single notice containing all the required information.