(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2019 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus BARTON v. BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 18–725. Argued November 4, 2019—Decided April 23, 2020 When a lawful permanent resident commits certain serious crimes, the Government may initiate removal proceedings before an immigration judge. 8 U. S. C. §1229a. If the lawful permanent resident is found removable, the immigration judge may cancel removal, but only if the lawful permanent resident meets strict statutory eligibility require- ments. §§1229b(a), 1229b(d)(1)(B). Over the span of 12 years, lawful permanent resident Andre Barton was convicted of state crimes, including a firearms offense, drug of- fenses, 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 require- ments, a lawful permanent resident must have “resided in the United States continuously for 7 years after having been admitted in any sta- tus.” §1229b(a)(2). Another provision, the so-called stop-time rule, provides that a continuous period of residence “shall be deemed to end” when the lawful permanent resident commits “an offense referred to in section 1182(a)(2) . . . that renders the alien inadmissible to the United States under section 1182(a)(2).” §1229b(d)(1)(B). Because Barton’s aggravated assault offenses were committed within his first seven years of admission and were covered by §1182(a)(2), the Immi- gration Judge concluded that Barton was not eligible for cancellation of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals and the Eleventh Cir- cuit agreed. Held: For purposes of cancellation-of-removal eligibility, a §1182(a)(2) of- fense committed during the initial seven years of residence does not need to be one of the offenses of removal. Pp. 6–17. (a) The cancellation-of-removal statute functions like a traditional 2 BARTON v. BARR Syllabus recidivist sentencing statute, making a noncitizen’s prior crimes rele- vant to eligibility for cancellation of removal. The statute’s text clari- fies two points relevant here. First, cancellation of removal is pre- cluded when, during the initial seven years of residence, the noncitizen “committed an offense referred to in section 1182(a)(2),” even if (as in Barton’s case) the conviction occurred after the seven years elapsed. Second, the offense must “rende[r] the alien inadmissible” as a result. For crimes involving moral turpitude, the relevant category here, §1182(a)(2) provides that a noncitizen is rendered “inadmissible” when he is convicted of or admits the offense. §1182(a)(2)(A)(i). As a matter of statutory text and structure, the analysis here is straightforward. Barton’s aggravated assault offenses were crimes in- volving moral turpitude and therefore “referred to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals