Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

hearingmotion
hearingmotion

Related Cases

R-, Matter of
View Case »
Bejar v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Bibiano v. Lynch
View Case »
Lopes v. Gonzales
View Case »
Gebremaria v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Quebrado Cantor v. Garland

Facts

Domingo Quebrado Cantor, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection in 2006. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him in 2011, serving him with a notice to appear that lacked the time and place of the proceedings. After a series of hearings and a final order of removal in 2014, Cantor sought to reopen his immigration proceedings in 2018, arguing that the initial notice was defective and did not stop the accrual of his continuous physical presence.

Domingo Quebrado Cantor, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection in 2006. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him in 2011, serving him with a notice to appear that lacked the time and place of the proceedings. After a series of hearings and a final order of removal in 2014, Cantor sought to reopen his immigration proceedings in 2018, arguing that the initial notice was defective and did not stop the accrual of his continuous physical presence.

Issue

Did the BIA err in denying Cantor's motion to reopen immigration proceedings by concluding that the stop-time rule was triggered by a final order of removal, despite the initial notice to appear lacking the required time and place?

Did the BIA err in denying Cantor's motion to reopen immigration proceedings by concluding that the stop-time rule was triggered by a final order of removal, despite the initial notice to appear lacking the required time and place?

Rule

Under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(1), a nonpermanent resident's period of continuous physical presence is deemed to end only when they are served a notice to appear that includes the time and place of the proceedings or when they commit certain crimes.

Under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(1), a nonpermanent resident's period of continuous physical presence is deemed to end only when they are served a notice to appear that includes the time and place of the proceedings or when they commit certain crimes.

Analysis

The court determined that the BIA's conclusion was contrary to the statutory text, as the stop-time rule was not triggered by a final order of removal. The initial notice to appear did not comply with the statutory requirement of specifying the time and place of the hearing, and thus did not stop the accrual of Cantor's physical presence. The court emphasized that the government had the responsibility to issue a compliant notice to trigger the stop-time rule.

The court determined that the BIA's conclusion was contrary to the statutory text, as the stop-time rule was not triggered by a final order of removal. The initial notice to appear did not comply with the statutory requirement of specifying the time and place of the hearing, and thus did not stop the accrual of Cantor's physical presence. The court emphasized that the government had the responsibility to issue a compliant notice to trigger the stop-time rule.

Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review and remanded the case to the BIA for further proceedings, as the BIA's decision was based on a legal error regarding the stop-time rule.

The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review and remanded the case to the BIA for further proceedings, as the BIA's decision was based on a legal error regarding the stop-time rule.

Who won?

Domingo Quebrado Cantor prevailed in the case because the court found that the government failed to provide a proper notice to appear, which was necessary to trigger the stop-time rule.

Domingo Quebrado Cantor prevailed in the case because the court found that the government failed to provide a proper notice to appear, which was necessary to trigger the stop-time rule.

You must be