Unpub. CA5 Niz-Chavez Remand: Ityonzughul v. Garland

Ityonzughul v. Garland

"While the failure to specify the time and date of an initial hearing does not render a notice to appear defective and does not deprive the immigration court of jurisdiction, See Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684, 689-90, 693 (5th Cir. 2019), abrogated in part on other grounds by Niz-Chavez v. Garland, __ U.S. __, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021), the Supreme Court recently held that a “notice to appear” sufficient to trigger the “stop time” rule must be a single document containing the requisite information set out by statute. NizChavez, 141 S. Ct. at 1485. Ityonzughul argues that he has more than ten years of continuous physical presence in the United States because the subsequent service of a notice of hearing after the receipt of an invalid notice to appear did not trigger the “stop time” rule. Per Niz-Chavez, Ityonzughul is correct. Because he received two documents—the notice of hearing containing the information missing from the notice to appear—and neither document was independently sufficient to trigger the “stop time rule,” Ityonzughul may be eligible for cancellation of removal. Thus, we remand to the BIA to determine whether Ityonzughul is eligible for cancellation."

[Hats off to Jake Monty!]