Barton v. BarrBarton v. Barr
When a lawful permanent resident commits certain serious crimes, the Government may initiate removal proceedings before an immigration judge.
Over the span of 12 years, lawful permanent resident Andre Barton was convicted of state crimes, including a firearms offense, drug offenses, and aggravated assault offenses. An Immigration Judge found him removable based on his state firearms and drug offenses. Barton applied for cancellation of removal. Among the eligibility requirements, a lawful permanent resident must have “resided in the United States continuously for 7 years after having been admitted in any status.”
Held: For purposes of cancellation-of-removal eligibility, a
(a) The cancellation-of-removal statute functions like a traditional
As a matter of statutory text and structure, the analysis here is straightforward. Barton’s aggravated assault offenses were crimes involving moral turpitude and therefore “referred to in section 1182(a)(2).” He committed the offenses during his initial seven years of residence and was later convicted of the offenses, thereby rendering him “inadmissible.” Barton was, therefore, ineligible for cancellation of removal. Pp. 6–10.
(b) Barton’s counterarguments are unpersuasive. First, he claims that the statute’s structure supports an “offense of removal” approach. But
Second, seizing on the statutory phrase “committed an offense referred to in section 1182(a)(2) . . . that renders the alien inadmissible to the United States under section 1182(a)(2),”
Third, Barton argues that the Government’s interpretation treats as surplusage the phrase “or removable from the United States under section 1227(a)(2) or 1227(a)(4).” But redundancies are common in statutory drafting. The Court has often recognized that sometimes the better overall reading of a statute contains some redundancy. And redundancy in one portion of a statute is not a license to rewrite or eviscerate another portion of the statute contrary to its text.
Finally, Barton argues alternatively that, even if inadmissibility is a status, and even if the offense that precludes cancellation of removal need not be one of the offenses of removal, a noncitizen must at least have been capable of being charged with a
904 F. 3d 1294, affirmed.
Kavanaugh, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan, JJ., joined.
Under the immigration laws, a noncitizen who is authorized to live permanently in the United States is a lawful permanent resident—also commonly known as a green-card holder. But unlike a U. S. citizen, a lawful permanent resident who commits a serious crime may be removed from the United States.
Andre Barton is a Jamaican national and a longtime lawful permanent resident of the United States. During his time in the United States, Barton has been convicted of state crimes on three separate occasions spanning 12 years. The crimes include a firearms offense, drug offenses, and aggravated assault offenses. By law, the firearms offense and the drug offenses each independently rendered Barton eligible for removal from the United States. In September 2016, the U. S. Government sought to remove Barton, and a U. S. Immigration Judge determined that Barton was removable.
Barton applied for cancellation of removal, a form of relief that allows a noncitizen to remain in the United States de
Under the cancellation-of-removal statute, the immigration judge examines the applicant’s prior crimes, as well as the offense that triggered his removal. If a lawful permanent resident has ever been convicted of an aggravated felony, or has committed an offense listed in
In this case, after finding Barton removable based on his state firearms and drug offenses, the Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) concluded that
Barton argues that the BIA and the Eleventh Circuit misinterpreted the statute. He contends that the
I
Federal immigration law governs the admission of noncitizens to the United States and the deportation of noncitizens previously admitted. See
A noncitizen who is authorized to live permanently in the United States is a lawful permanent resident, often known as a green-card holder. When a lawful permanent resident commits a crime and is determined by an immigration judge to be removable because of that crime, the Attorney General (usually acting through an immigration judge) may
For a lawful permanent resident, the cancellation-of-removal statute provides that an immigration judge “may cancel removal in the case of an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States if the alien—(1) has been an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence for not less than 5 years, (2) has resided in the United States continuously for 7 years after having been admitted in any status, and (3) has not been convicted of any aggravated felony.”
The statute imposes one other requirement known as the “stop-time rule.” As relevant here, the statute provides that a lawful permanent resident, during the initial seven years of residence, also cannot have committed “an offense referred to in section 1182(a)(2) of this title that renders the alien inadmissible to the United States under section 1182(a)(2) of this title or removable from the United States under section 1227(a)(2) or 1227(a)(4) of this title.”
Andre Barton is a Jamaican national and a lawful permanent resident of the United States. In 1996, he was convicted in a Georgia court of a firearms offense stemming from an incident where Barton and a friend shot up the house of Barton’s ex-girlfriend. In separate proceedings in 2007 and 2008, he was convicted in Georgia courts of state drug offenses. One case involved methamphetamine, and the other involved cocaine and marijuana.
Barton applied for cancellation of removal. All agree that Barton meets two of the eligibility requirements for cancellation of removal. He has been a lawful permanent resident for more than five years. And he has not been convicted of an “aggravated felony,” as defined by the immigration laws.
The Immigration Judge concluded, however, that Barton had committed an offense listed in
The Board of Immigration Appeals and the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit likewise concluded that Barton was not eligible for cancellation of removal. Barton v. United States Atty. Gen., 904 F. 3d 1294, 1302 (2018). The key question was whether the offense that precludes cancellation of removal (here, Barton’s 1996 aggravated assault offenses) must also be one of the offenses of removal.4 The Board of Immigration Appeals has long interpreted the statute to mean that “an alien need not actually be charged and found inadmissible or removable on the applicable ground in order for the criminal conduct
But in 2018, the Ninth Circuit disagreed with those courts and with the BIA. The Ninth Circuit ruled that a lawful permanent resident’s commission of an offense listed in
In light of the division in the Courts of Appeals over how to interpret this statute, we granted certiorari. 587 U. S. ___ (2019).
II
A
Under the immigration laws, when a noncitizen has committed a serious crime, the U. S. Government may seek to remove that noncitizen by initiating removal proceedings before an immigration judge. If the immigration judge determines that the noncitizen is removable, the immigration judge nonetheless has discretion to cancel removal. But the immigration laws impose strict eligibility requirements for cancellation of removal. To reiterate, a lawful permanent
To be eligible for cancellation of removal, the lawful permanent resident, during the initial seven years of residence after admission, also must not have committed “an offense referred to in section 1182(a)(2) of this title that renders the alien inadmissible to the United States under section 1182(a)(2) of this title or removable from the United States under section 1227(a)(2) or 1227(a)(4) of this title.”
The law therefore fashions two distinct ways in which a lawful permanent resident’s prior crimes may preclude cancellation of removal.
The law precludes cancellation of removal if the lawful permanent resident has been convicted of an “aggravated felony” at any time. The statutory list of aggravated felonies is long: murder, rape, drug trafficking, firearms trafficking, obstruction of justice, treason, gambling, human trafficking, and tax evasion, among many other crimes.
In addition, the law precludes cancellation of removal if the lawful permanent resident committed certain other serious crimes during the initial seven years of residence. The law defines those offenses by cross-referencing
In specifying when cancellation of removal would be precluded because of prior criminal activity, Congress struck a balance that considers both the nature of the prior crime and the length of time that the noncitizen has resided in the United States. If a lawful permanent resident has been convicted at any time of certain crimes (what the immigration laws refer to as an “aggravated felony”), then the noncitizen is not eligible for cancellation of removal. If during the initial 7-year period of residence, a lawful permanent resident committed certain other offenses referred to in
In providing that a noncitizen’s prior crimes (in addition to the offense of removal) can render him ineligible for cancellation of removal, the cancellation-of-removal statute functions like a traditional recidivist sentencing statute. In an ordinary criminal case, a defendant may be convicted of a particular criminal offense. And at sentencing, the defendant’s other criminal offenses may be relevant. So too in the immigration removal context. A noncitizen may be found removable based on a certain criminal offense. In applying for cancellation of removal, the noncitizen must detail his entire criminal record on Form EOIR–42A. An immigration judge then must determine whether the noncitizen has been convicted of an aggravated felony at any time or has committed a
Importantly, the text of the cancellation-of-removal statute does not simply say that cancellation of removal is precluded when, during the initial seven years of residence, the noncitizen was convicted of an offense referred to in
First, cancellation of removal is precluded if a noncitizen committed a
Second, the text of the law requires that the noncitizen be rendered “inadmissible” as a result of the offense. For crimes involving moral turpitude, which is the relevant category of
In this case, Barton’s 1996 state aggravated assault offenses were crimes involving moral turpitude and therefore “referred to in section 1182(a)(2).” Barton committed those offenses during his initial seven years of residence. He was later convicted of the offenses in a Georgia court and thereby rendered “inadmissible.” Therefore, Barton was ineligible for cancellation of removal.
As a matter of statutory text and structure, that analysis is straightforward. The Board of Immigration Appeals has long interpreted the statute that way. See Jurado-Delgado, 24 I. & N. Dec., at 31. And except for the Ninth Circuit, all of the Courts of Appeals to consider the question have interpreted the statute that way.
B
Barton pushes back on that straightforward statutory interpretation and the longstanding position of the Board of
To succinctly summarize the parties’ different positions (with the difference highlighted in italics below): The Government would preclude cancellation of removal under this provision if the lawful permanent resident committed a
To support his “offense of removal” approach, Barton advances three different arguments. A caution to the reader: These arguments are not easy to unpack.
First, according to Barton, the statute’s overall structure with respect to removal proceedings demonstrates that a
Because the offense of removal for lawful permanent residents is ordinarily a
This point is the Achilles’ heel of Barton’s structural argument. As we see it, Barton cannot explain the omission of
By contrast to this cancellation-of-removal provision, some other provisions of the immigration laws do focus only on the offense of removal—for example, provisions governing mandatory detention and jurisdiction. See
Second, moving from overall structure to precise text, Barton seizes on the statutory phrase “committed an offense referred to in section 1182(a)(2) . . . that renders the
As a matter of common parlance alone, that argument would of course carry some force. But the argument fails because it disregards the statutory text, which employs the term “inadmissibility” as a status that can result from, for example, a noncitizen’s (including a lawfully admitted noncitizen’s) commission of certain offenses listed in
For example, as relevant here,
Congress has in turn made that status—inadmissibility because of conviction or other proof of commission of
Consider how those other proceedings work. A lawfully admitted noncitizen who is convicted of an offense listed in
Those statutory examples pose a major hurdle for Barton’s textual argument. The examples demonstrate that Congress has employed the concept of “inadmissibility” as a status in a variety of statutes similar to the cancellation-of-removal statute, including for lawfully admitted noncitizens. Barton has no persuasive answer to those examples.
Barton tries to say that some of those other statutes involve a noncitizen who, although already admitted to the United States, is nonetheless seeking “constructive admission.” Reply Brief 12; Tr. of Oral Arg. 11. But that ginned-up label does not avoid the problem. Put simply, those other statutes show that lawfully admitted noncitizens who are, for example, convicted of
The same is true here. A lawfully admitted noncitizen who was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude during his initial seven years of residence is “inadmissible” and for that reason is ineligible for cancellation of removal.
In advancing his structural and textual arguments, Barton insists that his interpretation of the statute reflects congressional intent regarding cancellation of removal. But if Congress intended that only the offense of removal would preclude cancellation of removal under the 7-year residence provision, it is unlikely that Congress would have employed such a convoluted way to express that intent. Barton cannot explain why, if his view of Congress’ intent is correct, the statute does not simply say something like: “The alien is not eligible for cancellation of removal if the offense of removal was committed during the alien’s initial seven years of residence.”
Third, on a different textual tack, Barton argues that the Government’s interpretation cannot be correct because the Government would treat as surplusage the phrase “or removable from the United States under section 1227(a)(2) or 1227(a)(4) of this title.” Recall that the statute, as relevant here, provides that a lawful permanent resident is not eligible for cancellation of removal if, during the initial seven years of residence, he committed “an offense referred to in
To begin with, all agree that under either side’s interpretation, the reference to
One final point: Barton argues in the alternative that even if inadmissibility is a status, and even if the offense
* * *
Removal of a lawful permanent resident from the United States is a wrenching process, especially in light of the consequences for family members. Removal is particularly difficult when it involves someone such as Barton who has spent most of his life in the United States. Congress made a choice, however, to authorize removal of noncitizens—even lawful permanent residents—who have committed certain serious crimes. And Congress also made a choice to categorically preclude cancellation of removal for noncitizens who have substantial criminal records. Congress may of course amend the law at any time. In the meantime, the Court is constrained to apply the law as enacted by Congress. Here, as the BIA explained in its 2006 Jurado-Delgado decision, and as the Second, Third, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits have indicated, the immigration laws enacted by Congress do not allow cancellation of removal when a lawful permanent resident has amassed a criminal record of this kind.
We affirm the judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
It is so ordered.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE BREYER, and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting.
The stop-time rule ends a noncitizen‘s period of continuous residence, making him or her ineligible for certain relief from removal. But to trigger the rule, it takes more than commission of a specified criminal offense: The offense must also render a noncitizen either “inadmissible” or “deportable.” In applying these important limitations, the rule directly references the two-track nature of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), a statute that has long distinguished between noncitizens seeking admission and those already admitted. Inadmissibility, of course, pertains to noncitizens seeking admission; deportability relates to noncitizens already admitted but removable.
The majority errs by conflating these two terms. It concludes that the term “inadmissible,” for the purposes of the stop-time rule, refers to a status that a noncitizen could acquire even if he or she is not seeking admission. Under this logic, petitioner Andre Barton is inadmissible yet, at the same time, lawfully admitted. Neither the express language of the statute nor any interpretative canons support this paradox; Barton cannot and should not be considered inadmissible for purposes of the stop-time rule because he has already been admitted to the country. Thus, for the
I respectfully dissent.
I
A
Cancellation of removal is a form of immigration relief available to lawful permanent residents (LPRs) and other noncitizens, including those who have never been lawfully admitted.
The stop-time rule ends a noncitizen‘s period of continuous residence (1) when the noncitizen “has committed an offense referred to in section 1182(a)(2) of this title” that either (2) “renders” the noncitizen “inadmissible to the United States under section 1182(a)(2) of this title” or (3) renders the noncitizen “removable from the United States under section 1227(a)(2) or 1227(a)(4) of this title.”
This distinction between “inadmissible” and “deportable” matters. Indeed, both are terms of art, so it is critical to
Until Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), noncitizens seeking physical entry were placed in “‘exclusion proceeding[s],‘” while those already physically present were placed in “‘deportation proceeding[s].‘” Judulang v. Holder, 565 U. S. 42, 45 (2011). Although the grounds for exclusion and deportation—and the procedures applying to each—evolved over time, the immigration laws retained a two-track system; different procedures and processes applied to noncitizens who were deportable and noncitizens who were excludable. Brief for Immigration Law Professors as Amici Curiae 3–8.
IIRIRA changed the proceedings and some of the language. All noncitizens are now channeled into “‘removal proceeding[s],‘” and noncitizens previously labeled “excludable” are now labeled “‘inadmissible.‘” Judulang, 565 U. S., at 46. IIRIRA also altered when a noncitizen faces grounds of inadmissibility, formerly exclusion: Rather than focusing on whether a noncitizen had physically entered the country, the statute now asks whether the noncitizen had been lawfully admitted, in any status, to the country. See
Still, the immigration laws have retained their two-track structure. Inadmissibility and deportability remain separate concepts, triggered by different grounds. With few exceptions, the grounds for inadmissibility are broader than those for deportability. Compare
Whether a noncitizen is charged with inadmissibility or deportability also affects what the noncitizen or the Government must show to carry their respective burdens. A criminal ground for inadmissibility can be made out by showing either that the noncitizen admitted to conduct meeting the elements of a crime or that she was actually convicted of an offense. See, e.g., Pazcoguin v. Radcliffe, 292 F. 3d 1209, 1213–1215 (CA9 2002) (noncitizen inadmissible because he admitted to health officer that he smoked marijuana in his youth); see also
Finally, the substantive standards for cancellation of removal are also less stringent for a subset of deportable noncitizens: LPRs like Barton. Among other things, while an otherwise-eligible LPR must merely demonstrate that he or she deserves the relief as a matter of discretion, see In re C-V-T-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 7, 10–11 (BIA 1998), non-LPRs must demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to an LPR or citizen parent, spouse, or child,
These separate categories and procedures—treating deportable noncitizens more generously than inadmissible noncitizens, and treating one group of deportable noncitizens (LPRs) the most generously of all—stem from one animating principle. All noncitizens in this country are entitled to certain rights and protections, but the protections afforded to previously admitted noncitizens and LPRs are particularly strong. See Demore v. Kim, 538 U. S. 510, 543–544 (2003) (Souter, J., concurring in part and dissenting in
The stop-time rule carries that distinction forward. The rule specifies how a period of continuous residence ends for noncitizens who are seeking admission and thus are inadmissible, as well as noncitizens who are already admitted and thus are deportable. By using separate terms and grounds for two groups of people, the stop-time rule thus reflects the two-track dichotomy for inadmissible or deportable noncitizens that pervades the INA.
B
Barton is a longtime lawfully admitted resident of the United States. He and his mother moved to the United States from Jamaica when he was about 10 years old. They both entered legally and, through Barton‘s stepfather, soon adjusted their status to LPRs. When Barton was placed in removal proceedings, all of his immediate family—his mother, his children, his fiancee—were living in the United States. He had not returned to Jamaica in 25 years.
Barton was first arrested in 1996, when he was 17 or 18, after a friend shot at his ex-girlfriend‘s house while he was present. Both he and his friend were convicted of, among other things, aggravated assault and possession of a firearm. Barton later testified before an immigration judge that he was unaware that his friend had a gun or was planning to shoot it.
After attending a boot camp and obtaining his GED, Barton led a law-abiding life for several years. But in the mid-
Just a few years ago—nearly 10 years after his last arrest—the Government detained Barton and placed him in removal proceedings. Because he had been lawfully admitted to the country, the Government could not charge him with any grounds of inadmissibility. Rather, the Government charged, and Barton conceded, that he was deportable based on prior firearms and drug convictions. (All agree that Barton‘s aggravated-assault offense did not qualify as a deportable offense under
Perhaps recognizing that Barton had a strong case for cancellation of removal on the merits, see C-V-T-, 22 I. & N. Dec., at 11 (factors such as “family ties within the United States, residence of long duration in this country (particularly when the inception of residence occurred at a young age),” and “business ties” all favor a noncitizen seeking cancellation), the Government contended that Barton was categorically ineligible for that relief. It reasoned that Barton‘s prior offenses triggered the stop-time rule and that Barton therefore could not meet the continuous-residence requirement.
The problem (for the Government) was finding a prior offense that actually triggered the stop-time rule. None of the offenses that had made Barton deportable—his firearms and drug convictions—satisfied the stop-time rule‘s first clause because
So the Government took a different tack: It argued that, even though Barton had already been admitted (and was not seeking readmission), his aggravated-assault offense “render[ed him] inadmissible” under the second clause of the stop-time rule. That is, although the Government could not charge Barton with inadmissibility, it relied upon a ground of inadmissibility to assert that Barton was not entitled to relief from removal.
The Immigration Judge agreed with the Government. The judge made clear, however, that she would have granted Barton‘s cancellation application had he satisfied the continuous-residence requirement. The judge cited, among other things, Barton‘s strong family ties, including his four young children who were all U. S. citizens. The judge concluded that because “his last arrest was over 10 years ago,” Barton “is clearly rehabilitated.” The judge also concluded that Barton‘s family “relies on him and would suffer hardship if he were to be deported to Jamaica.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 36a.
II
Barton makes two arguments to this Court. The Court focuses on the first—that the stop-time rule will “rende[r]” a noncitizen inadmissible only if the person is actually adjudicated inadmissible based on the given offense. But whether Barton is right on that score is irrelevant because Barton‘s second argument—which the Court fails to grapple with meaningfully—is surely correct: At the very least, an offense cannot “rende[r]” someone inadmissible unless the Government can legally charge that noncitizen with a ground of inadmissibility. That is, the stop-time rule is consistent with basic immigration law: A noncitizen who has already been admitted, and is not seeking readmission, cannot be charged with any ground of inadmissibility and thus cannot be deemed inadmissible.
After all, if the provision applied to those who could hypothetically be rendered inadmissible, it could have said so. For example, the statute would have said that it applied when “the alien has committed an offense referred to in section 1182(a)(2) of this title” that either (2) “could render the alien inadmissible to the United States under section 1182(a)(2) of this title” or (3) could render the noncitizen “removable [i.e., deportable] from the United States under section 1227(a)(2) or 1227(a)(4) of this title.”2
To be sure, there are limited exceptions to the general rule that questions of admissibility apply only to noncitizens seeking formal admission. Noncitizens applying for adjustment of status must establish admissibility.
Alternatively, the Government also relies on two narrow provisions of the INA applicable to “[s]pecial agricultural workers,”
Although the term “inadmissible” in this context does not refer to an actual adjudication of inadmissibility, see Demore, 538 U. S., at 513, 531, the Government accepts that it must at least refer to a possible charge on a noncitizen seeking admission. Brief for Respondent 30. Otherwise, the statute would subject already-admitted noncitizens—even those who are not deportable for any criminal offense—to mandatory detention, simply because they occupy the “status” of inadmissibility. This provision‘s structure is virtually the same as the stop-time rule: It refers to grounds of inadmissibility and grounds of deportability separately and applies to a noncitizen in removal proceedings.
Given the similar structure, the stop-time rule should be read the same as the mandatory-detention provision: to refer to adjudications that are possible rather than impossible. If a noncitizen seeking admission has committed a crime under
III
The Court reaches a different result only by contorting the statutory language and by breezily waving away applicable canons of construction. At various points the Court seems to ignore the rule‘s second and third clauses entirely—clauses that, as mentioned above, distinguish between grounds of inadmissibility and grounds of deportability. The Court insists that the statute “operates like traditional criminal recidivist laws” because it precludes cancellation of removal for a noncitizen who “has committed an offense listed in §1182(a)(2) during the initial seven years of residence.” Ante, at 2; see also ante, at 7, 8, n. 5, 17.
Had Congress intended for commission of a crime in
But that reading ignores the rest of what Congress wrote. Congress specified that it is not enough for a noncitizen to commit a crime listed in
Even when the Court finally discusses the second clause, “renders the alien inadmissible,” the Court raises more
Even if this question mattered and were properly before us, Congress could have made the same point—that the stop-time rule is triggered by commission of a crime—by omitting the second and third clauses entirely. It again could have written what the Court, at various points, seems to wish it had written: The stop-time rule is triggered whenever a noncitizen “has committed an offense referred to in section 1182(a)(2) of this title.” The second and third clauses—which refer to later events, when a noncitizen is actually “render[ed]” inadmissible or deportable—make the Court‘s aside less plausible, not more.
The Court next insists that the second clause makes clear that the crime must “rende[r]” the noncitizen “inadmissible“—which, in the Court‘s view, requires only that a noncitizen admit the crime or be convicted of it. Ante, at 10.
Indeed, what does the Court do about the canon against surplusage? The Court does not dispute that its reading makes the entire third clause of the stop-time rule meaningless. It offers only two rejoinders: (1) that the reference to subsection (a)(4) in the third clause is superfluous under either party‘s reading, and (2) that a bit of surplusage makes no difference in any event. Ante, at 15–16. To be sure, “[s]ometimes the better overall reading of the statute contains some redundancy.” Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., 586 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip op., at 11). But the Court relies on more than just “some redundancy.” It dismisses out of hand one of only three clauses in the stop-time rule—without regard for the clause‘s pedigree or the core difference between deportability and inadmissibility.
It remains this Court‘s “‘duty “to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute.“‘” Duncan v. Walker, 533 U. S. 167, 174 (2001) (quoting United States v. Menasche, 348 U. S. 528, 538–539 (1955)). It must therefore be “‘reluctan[t] to treat statutory terms as surplusage’ in any setting,” 533 U. S., at 174 (quoting Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter, Communities for Great Ore., 515 U. S. 687, 698 (1995))—especially in this context, where each word could dictate categorical ineligibility for relief from removal. It also does not matter that, as the Government points out,
* * *
At bottom, the Court‘s interpretation is at odds with the express words of the statute, with the statute‘s overall structure, and with pertinent canons of statutory construction. It is also at odds with common sense. With virtually every other provision of the INA, Congress granted preferential treatment to lawfully admitted noncitizens—and most of all to LPRs like Barton. But because of the Court‘s opinion today, noncitizens who were already admitted to the country are treated, for the purposes of the stop-time rule, identically to those who were not—despite Congress’ express references to inadmissibility and deportability. The result is that, under the Court‘s interpretation, an immigration judge may not even consider whether Barton is entitled to cancellation of removal—because of an offense that Congress deemed too trivial to allow for Barton‘s removal in the first instance. Because the Court‘s opinion does no justice to the INA, let alone to longtime LPRs like Barton, I respectfully dissent.