## Facts

- Agusto Niz-Chavez, a Guatemalan national, entered the United States without authorization in 2005.
- In 2013, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings.
- The government served Niz-Chavez an initial document labeled a notice to appear that alleged removability but omitted the time and place of the hearing.
- Approximately two months later, the government sent a second document providing the hearing’s time and place.
- Niz-Chavez sought cancellation of removal as a nonpermanent resident, which requires, among other elements, 10 years of continuous physical presence.
- Under the statutory “stop-time rule,” continuous presence is deemed to end when the noncitizen is served “a notice to appear under” 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a).

## Issues

1. Whether the stop-time rule in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1) is triggered only by service of a single notice to appear containing all information required by 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1), including the hearing’s time and place.
2. Whether the government may trigger the stop-time rule by providing the required notice information across multiple documents served at different times.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held, 6–3, that a notice to appear sufficient to trigger the stop-time rule must be a single document containing all information specified in § 1229(a)(1).
- Because Niz-Chavez received the required information through multiple documents, he was not served “a notice to appear” as required to invoke the stop-time rule, and his continuous physical presence was not cut off by that two-step notice process.

## Legal Principles

- For purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1), “a notice to appear under” § 1229(a) means a single written notice that includes all items listed in § 1229(a)(1), including the time and place of the removal hearing.
- The government cannot trigger the stop-time rule by curing an incomplete notice to appear through later, separate notices supplying missing § 1229(a)(1) information.
- Statutory cross-references incorporate the referenced provision’s content requirements; the stop-time rule’s reference to § 1229(a) imports the full definition of a compliant notice to appear.

## Conclusion

The Court ruled that the stop-time rule for cancellation of removal is triggered only when the government serves one document that contains all statutorily required notice-to-appear information, including hearing time and place; piecemeal notice does not stop the accrual of continuous physical presence.


Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U.S. 155 (2021)