Niz-Chavez v. Garland

The Court decided that the government triggers the stop-time rule only by serving one notice to appear containing all required hearing information, including the time and place. It rejected using multiple notices sent over time to supply that information.

Justice Gorsuch wrote the 6–3 opinion, joined by Justices Thomas, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Barrett; Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kavanaugh and Alito dissented.

Majority

Gorsuch

Thomas

Breyer

Sotomayor

Kagan

Barrett

Dissent

Kavanaugh

Roberts

Alito

A noncitizen who first receives an incomplete notice may continue building time toward eligibility for cancellation of removal. For example, a later notice with a hearing date cannot by itself cure an earlier notice that omitted required details.

The Court has finished this case. The single-document rule governs how the government must give notice when seeking to trigger the stop-time rule.

The Court said the stop-time rule requires one notice to appear with all legally required hearing details, including time and place.

Noncitizens in removal proceedings who received incomplete initial notices may be affected. Later notices cannot combine with the first notice to trigger the rule.

The case is complete. Immigration authorities and courts must apply the Court's single-document notice rule in relevant removal proceedings.