One immigration hearing notice
Niz-Chavez v. Garland
In brief
The Supreme Court overturned the Sixth Circuit’s judgment and said the stop-time rule requires one complete notice with all required hearing information, not several separate notices.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 6-3 · April 29, 2021 · Opinion by Justice Gorsuch
- What it’s about
- This case asked whether the government can cut off a noncitizen’s time toward eligibility for cancellation of removal by sending hearing information in multiple notices, or whether it must provide all required information in one notice to appear.
- Who it affects
- The government must use one complete notice to trigger the stop-time rule; sending the required hearing details in separate documents is not enough.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court held that the stop-time rule is triggered only by a single document containing all the information the statute requires, including the time and place of the hearing.
The case sits within federal immigration law’s rules about when a noncitizen stops counting time needed to seek cancellation of removal.
Question presented
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.
What the Court decided
Holding
A notice to appear sufficient to trigger the IIRIRA’s stop-time rule is a single document containing all the information about an individual’s removal hearing specified in §1229(a)(1). 523, reversed.
- Result
- Reversed
The vote
From the opinions
“The Court today casts aside the Immigration Judge’s order and allows Niz-Chavez to go back to immigration court to seek cancellation of removal.”
What's next
Lower courts and immigration officials must apply the one-document requirement when deciding whether a notice triggered the stop-time rule. The ruling does not itself decide whether Niz-Chavez ultimately qualifies for cancellation of removal.
Why it matters
Lower courts and immigration officials must apply that one-document rule when deciding whether the stop-time rule was triggered.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 5 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
New analysis added
Case data updated: status, opinion_date
Opinion added: opinion
Brief added: Questions Presented
More questions
- What did the Supreme Court decide in Niz-Chavez v. Garland?
- It overturned the Sixth Circuit’s ruling and decided that the stop-time rule requires one document containing all required removal-hearing information.
- How must the government serve notice to trigger the stop-time rule?
- It must serve one document containing all information required for the removal hearing; multiple documents are not enough.
- Did the ruling decide whether Niz-Chavez qualifies for cancellation of removal?
- No. It resolved the notice requirement, not Niz-Chavez’s ultimate eligibility for cancellation of removal.
- What do lower courts and immigration officials do next?
- They must apply the one-document requirement when deciding whether a notice triggered the stop-time rule.
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.