Yi Wang v. Eric Holder, Jr., 759 F.3d 670

Wang, a Chinese national, was smuggled into the U.S. Virgin Islands in Sept. 1999 and served the same day with a Notice to Appear (NTA) that listed the hearing time/date as “to be set later.”
He was transported to New Orleans, released on bond, and provided a North Carolina address; the immigration court later sent two hearing notices (one while detained, one to the NC address) that were not properly served; Wang missed the hearing and the case was administratively closed in Nov. 1999.
Wang remained in the U.S. for ~10 years, later pursued a U Visa, and recalendarred proceedings in 2009–2011; an IJ granted a 20-month continuance to pursue the U Visa.
In Nov. 2012 the IJ denied Wang’s application for cancellation of removal, holding he lacked the required 10 years’ continuous physical presence because the NTA served in 1999 (without time/date) triggered the stop-time rule under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1).
The Board of Immigration Appeals, relying on Matter of Camarillo, affirmed; Wang petitioned for review, arguing the defective NTA could not trigger the stop-time rule and that the IJ abused his discretion in denying an additional continuance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an NTA that omits hearing time/date triggers the stop-time rule under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1)	Wang: NTA lacking time/date fails to satisfy § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i) and thus cannot cut off continuous presence	Government/BIA: § 1229b(d)(1) refers to the document type; a served NTA (even without time/date) notifies alien of removal proceedings and triggers stop-time	Court: Deferential Chevron review applies; BIA’s interpretation is a permissible construction and controls — served NTA without time/date suffices to stop accrual of continuous presence
Whether IJ abused discretion by denying additional continuance to file asylum application	Wang: Additional time was needed to prepare asylum application; prior harms and delays justified continuance	Government: IJ reasonably found request was a delay tactic; Wang had multiple earlier opportunities and long continuance already granted	Court: No abuse of discretion; denial was reasonable and any error would be harmless because Wang failed to show a reasonable fear of persecution in China

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (framework for deference to agency statutory interpretation)
Dababneh v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 806 (7th Cir. 2006) (concluding receipt of an NTA ends continuous presence for stop-time rule)
Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio, 134 S. Ct. 2191 (2014) (Chevron principles apply to BIA interpretations)
Urbina v. Holder, 745 F.3d 736 (4th Cir. 2014) (concluding § 1229b(d)(1) does not directly resolve whether an NTA lacking time/date triggers stop-time)
Guamanrrigra v. Holder, 670 F.3d 404 (2d Cir. 2012) (discussing NTA defects and stop-time implications)
Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757 (2001) (curable procedural defects in filings do not necessarily defeat their operative effect)
Calma v. Holder, 663 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. 2011) (standard and deference for IJ continuance decisions)