The BIA held that the stop-time rule that stops accrual of continuous physical presence or continuous residence for purposes of cancellation of removal is triggered upon service of a notice to appear (NTA) even if the NTA does not state the time or date of the removal hearing. Matter of Camarillo, 25 I&N Dec. 644 (BIA 2011) (Miller, Malphrus, and Mullane, Board members). Board member Malphrus wrote the panel’s decision.

SeeINA § 240A(d)(1)(A). The BIA relied on its decision in In re Camarillo, 25 I. & N. Dec. 644 (B.I.A. 2011) (discussed on this blog here), in affirming the immigration judge, however, Mr. Moscoso-Castellanos argues that In re Camarillo does not control his case and instead relies on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Garcia-Ramirez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2005). Id.