Niz-Chavez v. Garland(en inglés)
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.
Decidido
2021-04-29
Resumen
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.
Estado actual
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.
Fuente: Supreme Court of the United States: Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U.S. 155 (2021)
CaseWhy Plus
Si estás rastreando un caso, obtén una respuesta fundamentada en este fallo específico y en los hechos de tu caso.
Información general sobre un fallo judicial público, no asesoría legal ni un diagnóstico de ningún caso específico. Para orientación específica sobre su caso, consulte a un abogado de inmigración con licencia.