Guamanrrigra v. Holder
670 F.3d 404
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Guamanrrigra entered the United States without inspection in September 1995.
- On April 12, 2000, he was served with a Notice to Appear ordering appearance with date/time to be set.
- On May 1, 2000, a separate Notice of Hearing scheduled his hearing for August 3, 2000.
- Venue was later changed to New York City; an August 2000 Notice of Hearing may not have been properly received.
- In 2009 Guamanrrigra was detained on an outstanding removal order; a motion to reopen was granted in February 2009, and a June 2009 hearing followed.
- The BIA affirmed denial of cancellation of removal; the Second Circuit held that combined notices satisfied § 239(a)(1) and triggered the stop-time rule on May 1, 2000.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 239(a)(1) can be satisfied by a combination of notices | Guamanrrigra | Holder | Yes; combination satisfies § 239(a)(1). |
| Whether the stop-time rule is triggered despite defects in § 239(a)(2) notices | Guamanrrigra | Holder | Yes; stop-time triggered on proper § 239(a)(1) notice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dababneh v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 806 (7th Cir. 2006) (NTA can be satisfied by multiple documents providing required notice)
- Rojas-Reyes v. INS, 235 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2000) (stop-time policy aims to deter delay in proceedings)
- Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2005) (review of IJ/BIA decisions where applicable)
- Ali v. Mukasey, 525 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2008) (de novo review for purely legal questions)
- Karageorgious v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2004) (definition of pretermit in cancellation context)