Niz-Chavez v. Garland
Supreme Court of the United States · No. 19-863, 593 U.S. 155 (2021)
The Supreme Court held that a Notice to Appear sufficient to trigger the "stop-time rule" (which cuts off the period of continuous presence relevant to certain forms of relief from removal) must be a single document containing all the information the statute requires — not a series of separate notices that collectively supply it.
Decided
2021-04-29
Summary
The Supreme Court held that a Notice to Appear sufficient to trigger the "stop-time rule" (which cuts off the period of continuous presence relevant to certain forms of relief from removal) must be a single document containing all the information the statute requires — not a series of separate notices that collectively supply it. This builds on the Court's earlier Pereira v. Sessions decision.
Current status
This is the current operative standard for what counts as a valid, stop-time-triggering Notice to Appear. It's specifically about the NTA's effect on continuous-presence calculations for relief eligibility, not about NTA issuance or removal-proceeding merits generally.
Source: Supreme Court of the United States: Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U.S. 155 (2021)
CaseWhy Plus
If you're tracking a case, get an answer grounded in this specific ruling and your case's own facts.
General information about a public court ruling, not legal advice or a diagnosis of any specific case. For guidance specific to your case, talk to a licensed immigration attorney.