Resources on Cancellation/Suspension

You may search for resources either by title or by month and year.

Last updated on

In Niz-Chavez v. Garland, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the “stop-time rule” — used to calculate the 10-year continuous physical presence requirement for non-lawful permanent resident cancellation of removal and the 7-year continuous residence requirement for permanent resident cancellation of removal — is only triggered when the Department of Homeland Security serves a single “Notice to Appear” that contains all of the statutorily required information, including the time and place of the immigration court hearing. As a result of the Court’s April 29, 2021 decision, noncitizens with deficient NTAs who have since completed the required period of time in the United States for cancellation of removal may be eligible to apply for that form of relief, if they meet the other requirements.

Last updated on

On April 23, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued Barton v. Barr, 590 U. S. ___ (2020), where it held that legal permanent residents (LPRs) in removal proceedings might be ineligible for cancellation of removal based on the applicability of the stop-time rule.

Last updated on

As the future of DACA recipients remains uncertain, practitioners who work with DACA recipients should explore permanent relief options for this vulnerable population. One such permanent relief option is non-LPR cancellation under INA § 240A(b), which provides a path to lawful permanent residency to certain non-citizens placed in removal proceedings.