Section 1229b - Cancellation of removal; adjustment of status

24 Analyses of this statute by attorneys

  1. Cancellation of Removal for Non-LPRs (Cancelation-B)

    Alexander J. SegalOctober 1, 2015

    The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.Reference:Eligibility for Cancelation-B:8 INA ยง 240A(b)(1)(B), 8 USC ยง 1229b(b)(1)(B).9 INA ยง 240A(b)(1)(C), 8 USC ยง 1229b(b)(1)(C).10 INA ยง 240A(b)(1)(D), 8 USC ยง 1229b(b)(1)(D).Suspension Eligibility under former law.INA ยง 244(a)(1), 8 USC ยง 1254(a)(1) and INA ยง 240A(b)(1)(D), 8 USC ยง 1229b(b)(1)(D).

  2. Removal of Alien, 8 U.S.C. ยง1229b(a) โ€“ Parentโ€™s Status not Imputed to Child

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderMay 21, 2012

    Holder v. Carlos Martinez Gutierrez, USSC No. 10-1542, 5/21/12, reversing 411 Fed. Appx. 121 and 399 Fed. Appx. 313The Attorney General has discretion under 8 U.S.C. ยง1229b(a) to allow otherwise-removable aliens to remain in the U.S., if the alien satisfies three criteria: minimum of five years as a lawful permanent resident; continuous residence in the U.S. for at least seven years after lawful admission, as an LPR or otherwise; no conviction for an aggravated felony. The question here is whether the years of a parentโ€™s continuous residence, or LPR status, may be imputed to a child who would otherwise not meet the criteria.

  3. HERNANDEZ v. HOLDER, NO. 14-1148

    University of South Carolina School of LawKatherine H. FlynnApril 14, 2015

    Decided: April 14, 2015The Fourth Circuit held that 8 U.S.C. ยง 1229b(b)(1)(C) applies to both legal aliens and illegal aliens, and renders both ineligible for cancellation of removal from the United States when they have committed a crime of moral turpitude which falls under 8 U.S.C. ยงยง 1182(a)(2), 1227(a)(2), or ยง 1227 (a)(3), even if the crime committed would otherwise fall under a petit-offense exception within those statutes. The Fourth Circuit thus upheld the Board of Immigration Appealsโ€™s (โ€œBIAโ€) denial of Marina Hernandezโ€™s application for cancellation of removal from the United States.

  4. Tx Ct Crim App: Right to counsel properly waived despite not being told about deportation possibility

    University of Denver Sturm College of LawJuly 16, 2013

    True, but Guerreroโ€™s claim was not that the marijuana possession conviction makes him deportable; rather, his claim is that it makes him ineligible for cancellation of removal. In a footnote, the court makes light of this point and belies its poor understanding of immigration law enforcement and removal proceedings. Footnote 55 states, in its entirety: Appellee argues that, because of the 1998 marijuana case, he is now not even eligible to be considered for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. ยง 1229b. But, what matters is the state of the law and the state of appelleeโ€™s knowledge at the time he entered his plea, not events that have occurred since then.

  5. Supreme Court Decides Niz-Chavez v. Garland

    Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLPApril 30, 2021

    On April 29, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Niz-Chavez v. Garland, holding that, to constitute a notice to appear sufficient to stop a nonpermanent resident alienโ€™s continuous presence in the country under 8 U.S.C. ยง 1229b, the notice must be a single document containing all information about an individualโ€™s removal hearing specified in 8 U.S.C. ยง 1229(a)(1).Under U.S. immigration law, nonpermanent resident aliens who are ordered removed from the U.S. may be eligible for discretionary relief from removal if (among other requirements) they can establish their continuous presence in the U.S. for at least 10 years. But under the so called โ€œstop-time ruleโ€ in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (โ€œIIRIRAโ€), an alienโ€™s continuous presence in the country is deemed to end โ€œwhen the alien is served with a notice to appearโ€ in a removal proceeding. 8 U.S.C. ยง 1229b(d)(1).

  6. The Supreme Court - June 21, 2018

    Dorsey & Whitney LLPTimothy DroskeJune 23, 2018

    The Court's decision is available here.Pereira v. Sessions, No. 17-459: Under federal law, the Attorney General has discretion to โ€œcancel removalโ€ of certain non-permanent residents, including for noncitizens who have โ€œbeen physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of [an] applicationโ€ for cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C. ยง1229b(b)(1)(A). The โ€œstop-time ruleโ€ ends the period of continuous presence โ€œwhen the alien is served a notice to appear under section 1229(a) of this title.โ€

  7. A โ€œTenseโ€ Decision

    Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLCBruce GreenbergOctober 31, 2011

    Santos-Reyes v. United States, 660 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. 2011). Under 8 U.S.C. ยง1229b(a), an alien who could otherwise be deported from the United States can have the deportation cancelled if the alien โ€œhas resided in the United States continuously for 7 years after having been admitted in any status.โ€ That provision, however, is qualified by the โ€œstop-time rule,โ€ which states that โ€œany period of continuous residence or continuous physical presence in the United States shall be deemed to end when the alien has committed an offense [listed elsewhere in the statute].โ€

  8. SCOTUS: Second simple drug possession offense is not aggravated felony unless prosecuted as recidivist offense

    University of Denver Sturm College of LawJune 17, 2010

    Carachuri-Rosendo, No. 09-60, slip op. at 10.DHS initiated removal proceedings in 2006 based on his Xanax conviction. Carachuri-Rosendo conceded removability and applied for Cancellation of Removal for LPRs under INA ยง 240A(a), 8 U.S.C. ยง 1229b(a). Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, No. 09-60, slip op. at 6.

  9. The Supreme Court Update - March 20, 2024

    Dorsey & Whitney LLPMarch 21, 2024

    Fikre from the No Fly List, nor the governmentโ€™s declaration that Fikre would not be placed back on the list โ€œbased on the currently available informationโ€ was sufficient to demonstrate mootness. Today, in a 9-0 opinion authored by Justice Gorsuch, the Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit and held that the governmentโ€™s actions and declaration fall short of the โ€œformidable burdenโ€ to demonstrate it โ€œcannot reasonably be expected to do again in the future what it is alleged to have done in the past.โ€ Justice Alito (joined by Justice Kavanaugh) issued a short concurrence clarifying that the disclosure of classified information is not required to show mootness.View the Court's decision.Wilkinson v. Garland, No. 22-666: This case concerns the reviewability of an Immigration Judgeโ€™s (โ€œIJโ€) determination for whether a non-permanent residentโ€™s removal โ€œwould result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardshipโ€ to an immediate family member who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident under 8 U.S.C. ยง 1229b(b)(1)(D). Situ Kamu Wilkinson applied for cancellation of his removal, arguing it would result in โ€œexceptional and extremely unusual hardshipโ€ to his son, a U.S. citizen who suffers from a serious medical condition and relies on him for emotional and financial support. An IJ held that Wilkinson did not satisfy the โ€œexceptional and extremely unusual hardshipโ€ standard, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The Third Circuit dismissed Wilkinsonโ€™s petition for review, holding that because an IJโ€™s hardship determination is โ€œdiscretionary,โ€ it lacks jurisdiction to review it. Recognizing that the Courts of Appeal are split on this issue, the Court, in a decision authored by Justice Sotomayor, held that the application of the โ€œexceptional and extremely unusual hardshipโ€ standard to a given set of facts is reviewable as a question of law under 8 U.S.C. ยง 1252(a)(2)(D). The Court reversed the Third Circuitโ€™s decision on jurisdiction, vacated the judgment, and remanded for further proceedings

  10. The Supreme Court - April 29, 2021

    Dorsey & Whitney LLPTimothy DroskeApril 30, 2021

    Under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996โ€™s (โ€œIIRIRAโ€) โ€œstop-timeโ€ rule, time towards this 10 year requirement stops accruing โ€œwhen the alien is served a notice to appear.โ€ 8 U.S.C. ยง1229b(d)(1). The IIRIRA further defines a notice to appear as โ€œwritten notice . . . specifyingโ€ several things, including the nature of the proceedings against the alien, charges against the alien, the time and place at which the proceedings will be held, and other requirements.