Domingo Quebrado Cantor v. Merrick Garland, 17 F.4th 869

Domingo Quebrado Cantor entered the U.S. without inspection in 2006 and was served an NTA in 2011 that did not specify time or place for removal proceedings.
He later received a separate hearing notice with time/place, appeared, conceded removability; an IJ ordered removal, the BIA affirmed, and a final removal order issued in 2014; Ninth Circuit review was denied.
After Pereira (2018) held an NTA must specify time and place to trigger the stop-time rule, Quebrado moved to reopen in order to apply for cancellation of removal, claiming he had continuous physical presence since 2006.
The government argued the later hearing notice cured the defective NTA; the BIA declined that cure argument and instead denied reopening solely on the ground that a final order of removal stops accrual of continuous presence.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s legal rationale, concluding the stop-time rule by statute is triggered only by (A) service of a valid NTA or (B) commission of certain crimes, and a final removal order is not among those triggers.
The court granted the petition and remanded because the BIA’s sole stated ground was legally erroneous and the BIA had not considered alternative grounds for denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a final order of removal triggers the stop-time rule under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1)	Quebrado: No — stop-time was not triggered because the initial NTA lacked time/place and the later notice cannot cure that defect under Pereira and Niz-Chavez	Government: Yes — the stop-time rule can be triggered by events other than the two statutory triggers (or the later hearing notice cured the defect)	Court: No — statutory text is unambiguous; only service of a valid NTA or commission of enumerated offenses stops accrual; a final order does not trigger stop-time
Whether the BIA’s legal error was harmless or required remand	Quebrado: BIA’s stated ground was the only ground relied on, so error requires remand	Government: Any error is harmless because other (unstated) grounds could justify denial	Court: Remand required — review is limited to the BIA’s stated reasons on the face of its decision, and it did not address alternate grounds

Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018) (NTA must specify time and place to trigger stop-time)
Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021) (government cannot cure a deficient NTA with later separate notice)
United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53 (2000) (when Congress lists specific exceptions, courts should not create others)
Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2020) (judicial review limited to the legal grounds the BIA actually relied upon)