Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Niz-Chavez v. Garland

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Niz-Chavez v. Garland
Term: 2020
Important Dates
Argument: November 9, 2020
Decided: April 29, 2021
Outcome
Reversed
Vote
6-3
Majority
Neil Gorsuch • Clarence Thomas • Stephen Breyer • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Amy Coney Barrett
Dissenting
Brett Kavanaugh • Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Samuel Alito


This article is about the court case previously known as Niz-Chavez v. Barr; it became Niz-Chavez v. Garland when Merrick Garland became the attorney general of the United States.


Niz-Chavez v. Garland is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on November 9, 2020, during the court's October 2020-2021 term.

The court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit's ruling in a 6-3 opinion, holding that a notice to appear sufficient to trigger the stop-time rule is a single document containing all of the information about an individual's removal hearing specified in §1229(a)(1). Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.[1] Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Agusto Niz-Chavez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, came to the United States without lawful permission in 2005. In 2013, he was served with a notice to appear in deportation proceedings. The notice to appear did not include the time and place of a hearing. A second notice later indicated the hearing would take place on June 25, 2013. Niz-Chavez applied for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge denied his motion. The U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the immigration judge's decision, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit denied a petition for review.[2][3]
  • The issues: The case concerned the government's ability to serve a notice to appear to a non-citizen, and the immigration stop-time rule, where a non-citizen's accrual of continuous residence ends when that person is served with a notice to appear.[2]
  • The questions presented: Whether the government must provide the time and place of deportation hearings in a single notice to appear document to trigger the stop-time rule under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a), or whether the government can trigger the rule by providing the information in multiple documents.[4]
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit's judgment in a 6-3 ruling, holding that a single document containing all of the information about an individual's removal hearing is sufficient to trigger the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996’s stop-time rule.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. You can review the lower court's opinion here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • April 29, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit's ruling.
    • November 9, 2020: Oral argument was heard.
    • June 8, 2020: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. When the case was originally accepted, the case name was Niz-Chavez v. Barr.
    • January 9, 2020: Agusto Niz-Chavez filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • October 24, 2019: The 6th Circuit denied Niz-Chavez's petition for review.

    Background

    Factual background

    Agusto Niz-Chavez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, came to the United States without lawful permission in 2005 after fleeing Guatemala for fear of violence. On March 26, 2013, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security served Niz-Chavez with a notice to appear in deportation proceedings. The document did not indicate the time and place a hearing would take place. Niz-Chavez later received a notice indicating the hearing would take place on June 25, 2013. He sought to apply for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture.[2][3]

    A merits hearing on his application was held on September 13, 2017. At the hearing, Niz-Chavez sought to apply for cancellation of removal. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), an individual is eligible for cancellation of removal if her or she has been "physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of such application." However, the accrual of continuous presence ends when the individual receives a notice to appear under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a). This is referred to as the stop-time rule. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Niz-Chavez's motion, ruling that under the stop-time rule, his continuous presence in the U.S. ended when he received the notice to appear in 2013.[3]

    Niz-Chavez appealed to the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), asking the board to remand his case in light of Pereira v. Sessions.[3] In that 2018 case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a notice to appear for an immigration hearing that does not include a time and place for a hearing does not trigger the stop-time rule for an individual's residency clock.

    The BIA affirmed the IJ's ruling, holding Niz-Chavez was not eligible for cancellation of removal. The United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit denied a petition for review.[2]

    Stop-time rule

    Congress enacted the stop-time rule as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). The rule provided that a non-citizen's accrual of continuous residence in the United States ends when the government serves the non-citizen with a notice to appear under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a). The IIRIRA required the notice to appear to include the time and place of a hearing.[2]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[5]

    Questions presented:
    “ Whether, to serve notice in accordance with section 1229(a) and trigger the stop-time rule, the government must serve a specific document that includes all the information identified in section 1229(a), or whether the government can serve that information over the course of as many documents and as much time as it chooses.[6] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[7]



    Transcript

    Outcome

    The court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit's ruling in a 6-3 opinion, holding that a notice to appear sufficient to trigger the stop-time rule is a single document containing all the information about an individual's removal hearing specified in §1229(a)(1). Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.[1]

    Opinion

    In their opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote:[1]

    “ Anyone who has applied for a passport, filed for Social Security benefits, or sought a license understands the government's affinity for forms. Make a mistake or skip a page? Go back and try again, sometimes with a penalty for the trouble. But it turns out the federal government finds some of its forms frustrating too. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), 110 Stat. 3009–546, requires the government to serve “a notice to appear” on individuals it wishes to remove from this country. At first blush, a notice to appear might seem to be just that—a single document containing all the information an individual needs to know about his removal hearing. But, the government says, supplying so much information in a single form is too taxing. It needs more flexibility, allowing its officials to provide information in separate mailings (as many as they wish) over time (as long as they find convenient). The question for us is whether the law Congress adopted tolerates the government’s preferred practice. ...


    In the end, though, all this speculation is beside the point. The dissent tries to predict how the government will react to a ruling that requires it to follow the law and then proceeds to assess the resulting “costs” and “benefits.” Post, at 17, 20–21. But that kind of raw consequentialist calculation plays no role in our decision. Instead, when it comes to the policy arguments championed by the parties and the dissent alike, our points are simple: As usual, there are (at least) two sides to the policy questions before us; a rational Congress could reach the policy judgment the statutory text suggests it did; and no amount of policy-talk can overcome a plain statutory command. Our only job today is to give the law’s terms their ordinary meaning and, in that small way, ensure the federal government does not exceed its statutory license. Interpreting the phrase “a notice to appear” to require a single notice—rather than 2 or 20 documents—does just that.

    At one level, today’s dispute may seem semantic, focused on a single word, a small one at that. But words are how the law constrains power. In this case, the law’s terms ensure that, when the federal government seeks a procedural advantage against an individual, it will at least supply him with a single and reasonably comprehensive statement of the nature of the proceedings against him. If men must turn square corners when they deal with the government, it cannot be too much to expect the government to turn square corners when it deals with them.

    The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is Reversed.[6]

    		”
    —Justice Neil Gorsuch

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.[1]

    In their dissent, Justice Kavanaugh wrote:[1]

    “ ... In sum, the Court’s statutory conclusion in this case will not necessarily help noncitizens. The Court’s statutory interpretation is not likely to create meaningful benefits for many noncitizens going forward, and it is not likely to create benefits for many noncitizens looking backwards. And it will impose serious administrative burdens on an immigration system that is already overburdened, thereby harming other noncitizens. ...


    As a matter of policy, one may reasonably debate the circumstances under which a noncitizen who is unlawfully in the country should be removed and should be eligible for cancellation of removal. But those policy choices are for the political branches. Our job is to follow the law passed by Congress and signed by the President.

    The statute here requires the Government to serve the noncitizen with written notice of the charges and other required information, including the time and place of the hearing. In this case, Niz-Chavez received written notice of the charges and all the required information, including the time and place of his hearing. Niz-Chavez appeared with counsel at his hearing in Detroit on June 25, 2013. Because he received written notice to appear before he had accumulated 10 years of continuous physical presence, he is not eligible for cancellation of removal. I respectfully dissent.[6]

    		”
    —Justice Brett Kavanaugh

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2020-2021

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 5, 2020. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[8]

    The court issued 67 opinions during its 2020-2021 term. Two cases were decided in one consolidated opinion. Ten cases were decided without argument. Click here for more information on the court's opinions.

    The court agreed to hear 62 cases during its 2020-2021 term. Of those, 12 were originally scheduled for the 2019-2020 term but were delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Five cases were removed from the argument calendar.


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 U.S. Supreme Court, Niz-Chavez v. Garland, decided April 29, 2021
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Supreme Court of the United States, Niz-Chavez v. Barr, "Petition for a writ of certiorari," accessed June 9, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, Niz-Chavez v. Barr, decided October 24, 2019
    4. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Court grants immigration case," June 8, 2020
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Niz-Chavez v. Barr, "Questions presented," accessed June 9, 2020
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," accessed November 12, 2020
    8. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court," accessed April 20, 2015
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Niz-Chavez_v._Garland&oldid=9117225"