CAMARILLO
25 I. & N. Dec. 644
| BIA | 2011Background
- Camarillo, a Guatemala-born, lawful permanent resident since 2000, faced removal proceedings and cancellation of removal under INA § 240A.
- She was served a Notice to Appear on August 29, 2005, which stated 'To be set' for the date/time of hearing and was later filed with the Harlingen Immigration Court.
- An IJ found her removable for alien smuggling and granted cancellation after determining seven years of continuous residence.
- DHS appealed, arguing the stop-time rule under INA § 240A(d)(1) ended continuous residence when service of the notice to appear occurred, even without a date/time in the notice.
- The Board agreed with DHS, remanding for a new decision, and the DHS appeal was sustained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether stop-time ends on service of notice to appear even if date/time is not included. | DHS contends stop-time triggers at service of the notice to appear under §240A(d)(1). | Camarillo contends the notice must include date/time per §239(a)(1)(G) to stop accrual. | Stop-time ends on service of notice to appear. |
| Whether 'under section 239(a)' in §240A(d)(1) is definitional or requires full §239(a)(1) compliance. | DHS argues §240A(d)(1) definitionally identifies the notice that triggers stop-time. | Camarillo argues the notice must satisfy all §239(a)(1) requirements. | Definitional reading; service triggers stop-time without needing date/time in initial notice. |
| Whether the respondent’s admission status affects eligibility under §240A(a)(2) given stop-time application. | DHS contends the respondent’s prior admission in 2000 qualifies under §240A(a)(2). | Camarillo argues parole is not an admission; stops continuous presence when served. | Parole not an admission; service of notice ended continuous presence on August 29, 2005. |
Key Cases Cited
- Popa v. Holder, 571 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2009) (notice to appear with later hearing notice valid for stop-time)
- Dababneh v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 806 (7th Cir. 2006) (stop-time may be triggered by service of charging documents and hearing notices)
- Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 2009) (supports flexible timing of hearing notices in stop-time context)
- Haider v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 902 (8th Cir. 2006) (addressed notice requirements and stop-time implications)
- Arenas-Yepes v. Gonzales, 421 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2005) (discussion on notice to appear and related timing issues)