Barton v. Barr
In brief
The Supreme Court upheld the ruling: a listed §1182(a)(2) offense during a permanent resident's first seven years can stop the residence clock even if it is not the offense used for removal.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 5-4 · April 23, 2020 · Opinion by Justice Kavanaugh
- What it’s about
- The case asked when a lawful permanent resident loses eligibility to ask an immigration judge to cancel removal after committing certain crimes.
- Who it affects
- A listed §1182(a)(2) offense from the first seven years can stop the residence clock even when it is not the offense used for removal. That can block a permanent resident from asking an immigration judge to cancel removal.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court held that if the person committed an offense listed in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2) during the first seven years of residence, that offense triggers the stop-time rule and can bar cancellation of removal even if the person was not seeking admission to the United States.
Immigration law distinguishes between people seeking admission and people already admitted, while the stop-time rule controls how long residence counts toward asking an immigration judge to cancel removal.
Question presented
Whether a lawfully admitted permanent resident who is not seeking admission to the United States can be "render[ed] ... inadmissible" for the purposes of the stop-time rule, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(l).
What the Court decided
Holding
For purposes of cancellation-of-removal eligibility, a §1182(a)(2) offense committed during the initial seven years of residence does not need to be one of the offenses of removal. 904 F. 3d 1294, affirmed.
- Result
- Affirmed
The vote
From the opinions
“The majority errs by conflating these two terms. It concludes that the term “inadmissible,” for the purposes of the stop-time rule, refers to a status that a noncitizen could acquire even if he or she is not seeking admission. Under this logic, petitioner Andre Barton is inadmissible yet, at the same time, lawfully admitted.”
What's next
The Supreme Court's review is complete. The Eleventh Circuit's ruling remains in place.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Opinion added: opinion
Brief added: Questions Presented
More questions
- What did the Supreme Court decide in Barton v. Barr?
- It upheld the Eleventh Circuit's ruling. A §1182(a)(2) offense during the first seven years did not have to be the offense used for removal.
- How does the stop-time rule affect a permanent resident's request?
- A §1182(a)(2) offense from the first seven years can stop the residence clock. That can block the resident from asking an immigration judge to cancel removal.
- Why did Justice Sotomayor disagree in Barton v. Barr?
- She said the Court confused rules for people seeking admission with rules for people already admitted and facing removal. She also said the rule requires more than committing a listed offense.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.