Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Agusto Niz-Chavez v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, No. 18-4264 · judgment October 24, 2019

Decided · April 29, 2021

Pre-decision estimate: 2% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Question presented

The Attorney General can cancel removal of certain immigrants under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b (a) and (b). To be eligible for cancellation of removal, a non-permanent resident must have ten years of continuous presence in the United States, and a permanent resident must have seven years of continuous residence. Id. § 1229b(a)(2), (b)(l)(A). Under the "stop-time rule," the government can end those periods of continuous residence by serving "a notice to appear under section 1229(a)," which, in turn, defines "a 'notice to appear"' as "written notice ... specifying" specific information related to the initiation of a removal proceeding. Id. §§ 1229b (d)(l), 1229(a)(l). In Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2117 (2018), this Court held that only notice "in accordance with'' section 1229(a)'s definition triggers the stop-time rule. The question presented in this case is: Whether, to serve notice in accordance with section 1229(a) and trigger the stoptime 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.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
David Jacob Zimmer
Zimmer, Citron & Clarke LLP

For respondent
Brian H. Fletcher
Acting Solicitor General

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences

Amicus briefs
4 merits
(3 supporting pet./neither, 1 respondent)

Argument & decision

Argued November 9, 2020 — David Zimmer · Anthony A. Yang. Audio and transcript

Decided April 29, 2021.

Proceedings

Jun 01 2021
JUDGMENT ISSUED.
Apr 29 2021
Judgment REVERSED. Gorsuch, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Thomas, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Kavanaugh, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Alito, J., joined.
Nov 09 2020
Argued. For petitioner: David Zimmer, Boston, Mass. For respondent: Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
Oct 26 2020
Reply of petitioner Agusto Niz-Chavez filed. (Distributed)
Oct 02 2020
Brief amicus curiae of Immigration Reform Law Institute filed. (Distributed)
Sep 25 2020
Brief of respondent William P. Barr, Attorney General filed. (Distributed)
Sep 18 2020
Motion to extend the time to file respondent's brief on the merits granted and the time is extended to and including September 25, 2020.
Sep 16 2020
Motion for an extension of time to file respondent's brief on the merits filed.
Sep 02 2020
CIRCULATED
Sep 01 2020
Record of the U.S.C.A.6th Circuit electronically received.
Aug 31 2020
Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit.
Aug 19 2020
SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, November 9, 2020.
Aug 13 2020
Brief amici curiae of Thirty-Three Former Immigration Judges and Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals filed.
Aug 13 2020
Brief amicus curiae of National Immigrant Justice Center filed.
Aug 13 2020
Brief amici curiae of American Immigration Lawyers Association, The American Immigration Council, Legal Services Providers filed.
Aug 06 2020
Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)
Aug 06 2020
Brief of petitioner Agusto Niz-Chavez filed.
Jul 20 2020
Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 6, 2020. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including September 21, 2020.
Jul 13 2020
Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.
Jun 08 2020
Petition GRANTED.
Jun 08 2020
As Rule 34.6 provides, “If the Court schedules briefing and oral argument in a case that was governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c) or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1(c), the parties shall submit electronic versions of all prior and subsequent filings with this Court in the case, subject to [applicable] redaction rules.” Subsequent party and amicus filings in the case should now be submitted through the Court’s electronic filing system, with any necessary redactions.
Jun 01 2020
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/4/2020.
May 20 2020
Letter of May 20, 2020 from counsel for petitioner filed.
May 12 2020
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/28/2020.
May 11 2020
Reply of petitioner Agusto Niz-Chavez filed.
May 01 2020
Letter of May 1, 2020 from the Solicitor General filed.
Apr 21 2020
Motion to delay distribution of the petition for a writ of certiorari until May 12, 2020, granted.
Apr 20 2020
Motion of petitioner to delay distribution of the petition for a writ of certiorari under Rule 15.5 from April 28, 2020 to May 12, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
Apr 10 2020
Brief of respondent William P. Barr, Attorney General in opposition filed.
Mar 06 2020
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including April 10, 2020.
Mar 05 2020
Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 11, 2020 to April 10, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
Feb 05 2020
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 10, 2020 to March 11, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
Feb 05 2020
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 11, 2020.
Jan 09 2020
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 10, 2020)
Jan 09 2020
Pursuant to Rule 34.6 and Paragraph 9 of the Guidelines for the Submission of Documents to the Supreme Court's Electronic Filing System, filings in ths case should be submitted in paper form only, and should not be submitted through the Court's electronic filing systesm.