Barton v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1442 (2020)
Barton v. Barr is a leading Supreme Court decision on the scope of the "stop-time rule" that governs eligibility for cancellation of removal, a key discretionary form of relief for long-term lawful permanent residents (LPRs).
Does an offense "referred to in" 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(2) that would render a noncitizen inadmissible stop the seven-year clock for LPR cancellation of removal under the stop-time rule, even when the noncitizen is charged with deportability rather than inadmissibility?
Under the stop-time rule, 8 U.S.C. §1229b(d)(1), "any period of continuous residence or continuous physical presence in the United States shall be deemed to end . . . when the alien has committed an offense referred to in section 1182(a)(2) that renders the alien inadmissible to the United States under section 1182(a)(2) or removable from the United States under section 1227(a)(2) or 1227(a)(4), whichever is earliest," or upon service of a notice to appear. For LPR cancellation under §1229b(a), an applicant must (1) have been an LPR for not less than five years; (2) have resided continuously in the United States for seven years after having been admitted in any status; and (3) not have been convicted of an aggravated felony. An offense triggers stop-time if it is among those "referred to in" §1182(a)(2) and it would render the person inadmissible under §1182(a)(2) or removable under §1227(a)(2) or (a)(4), regardless of the government's chosen removal charge.
Yes. The commission of an offense "referred to in" §1182(a)(2) that would render the noncitizen inadmissible triggers the stop-time rule and ends the accrual of the seven-year continuous-residence period, even if the noncitizen is charged with deportability rather than inadmissibility. Barton's 1996 convictions triggered stop-time, so he was ineligible for LPR cancellation of removal.
Barton crystallizes how the stop-time rule operates: an offense listed in §1182(a)(2) that would render a person inadmissible halts the seven-year residence clock for LPR cancellation even if the current proceeding is based on deportability. For practitioners and students, the case illustrates a strongly textual approach to cross-referenced statutory provisions and highlights the functional, status-based use of "inadmissibility" within the INA. Practically, the decision narrows access to cancellation for long-term residents with early criminal conduct and underscores the importance of analyzing whether any offense within the first seven years post-admission fits within §1182(a)(2) or §1227(a)(2)/(a)(4), as well as whether exceptions (e.g., the petty-offense exception) apply.