Term: 2020
Docket: 19-863
Niz-chavez v. Garland, Attorney General
- Pro
19-863 NIZ-CHAVEZ V. GARLAND DECISION BELOW: 789 Fed.Appx. 523 CERT. GRANTED 6/8/2020 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Attorney General can cancel removal of certain immigrants under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b (a) and (b). To be eligible for cancellation of removal, a non-permanent resident must have ten years of continuous presence in the United States, and a permanent resident must have seven years of continuous residence. Id. § 1229b(a)(2), (b)(l)(A). Under the "stop-time rule," the government can end those periods of continuous residence by serving "a notice to appear under section 1229(a)," which, in turn, defines "a 'notice to appear"' as "written notice ... specifying" specific information related to the initiation of a removal proceeding. Id. §§ 1229b (d)(l), 1229(a)(l). In Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2117 (2018), this Court held that only notice "in accordance with'' section 1229(a)'s definition triggers the stop-time rule. The question presented in this case is: 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. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 18-4264
The Niz-Chavez v. Garland case revolved around the interpretation of a federal law that governs how non-citizens can be removed from the United States. The petitioner, Agusto Niz-Chavez, an undocumented immigrant from Guatemala, argued that he was not properly notified about his removal proceedings because the government sent him two separate notices instead of one consolidated notice as required by law. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Niz-Chavez in a 6-3 decision stating that federal law mandates all information regarding deportation proceedings to be contained within a single document for it to constitute 'a notice to appear'. This ruling could potentially affect hundreds of thousands of immigration cases by allowing immigrants more time in the U.S., while they challenge their removal or seek special humanitarian exemptions.
The dissenting opinion in the NIZ-CHAVEZ v. GARLAND case, penned by Justice Kavanaugh and joined by Justices Roberts and Breyer, argued that the majority's interpretation of the statutory language was incorrect. They contended that a "notice to appear" does not need to be a single document but can instead be multiple documents sent at different times as long as they collectively provide all necessary information. The dissenters believed this approach better aligned with Congress' intent when it enacted the law in question - which was aimed at streamlining removal proceedings for nonpermanent residents who are not legally present in the U.S., rather than complicating them further. They also expressed concern about potential practical implications of requiring all relevant information to be included within one document, such as delays or disruptions in immigration court scheduling.
