What happened
Agusto Niz-Chavez, a Guatemalan national, entered the US without inspection in 2005. In 2013 DHS served him a Notice to Appear with no date or place of hearing. A separate notice with the specific date arrived later.
By the time of his hearing, Niz-Chavez had accrued more than 10 years of physical presence — the threshold for cancellation of removal under INA §240A(b).
DHS argued the stop-time rule was triggered when the first NTA was served, so the 10 years never accrued. Niz-Chavez argued an incomplete NTA does not trigger the rule.
The court's ruling
Justice Gorsuch, writing for a 6-3 majority, relied on the text of INA §1229(a): "a notice to appear" — singular noun, indefinite article. The statute, he said, requires one document, not a collection of papers.
Joining the majority: Justices Thomas, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Barrett. Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Alito dissented.
The Court rejected DHS's argument from administrative convenience: "If Congress finds [the rule] inconvenient, Congress can change it."
Why it matters
This is the second time the Supreme Court has intervened in DHS's two-step NTA practice — after Pereira v. Sessions (2018). DHS tried to work around Pereira; Niz-Chavez closed the loophole.
Thousands of cancellation of removal cases denied because of the stop-time rule may now be reopened through a motion to reopen.
The ruling helps only if the original NTA was defective (no date or place) and you could have accrued 10 years absent the stop-time rule.
What it means for you
Pull out your NTA. If it has no date or place of hearing, you may have grounds for a motion to reopen.
Check your entry date and time spent outside the US. Cancellation requires 10 years of continuous physical presence + good moral character + exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative.
This is not an automatic win. Niz-Chavez only removes the stop-time bar — you still have to prove every other element of cancellation in court.
🏛️ Related courts
⚖️ Related judges
Attorney commentary
“In the past five years I've seen dozens of cases where clients were just short of qualifying for cancellation, but the stop-time rule cut off a few months. After Niz-Chavez we can replay those — but the window for a motion to reopen is tight: 90 days from the final order, with limited sua sponte exceptions.”
“The most common mistake: clients come in saying "I already had my case and got denied." We open the file, look at the original NTA, and the Date or Time field is blank. That changes the conversation.”
“Remember: Niz-Chavez does not open the door for people without 10 years of presence. It is a narrow technical shift on one element.”
Sources
⚠️ This material is educational and is not legal advice. Whether it applies to your case should be discussed with an attorney.