Date AnnouncedSept. 16, 2018
USCIS and ICE reportedly have been issuing NTAs with false dates or dates when the courts are not in fact open. Some have non-existent dates, such as Sept. 31; others list times when the courts are not in session. These incorrect NTAs have been issued to immigrants in at least 10 cities. Reports suggest that ICE did not coordinate or clear the dates with the immigration courts.
See Biden administration action below.View Policy Document View Policy Document
Effective Date of ChangeSept. 16, 2018
Subsequent ActionNovember 9, 2020
Supreme Court argument considering whether, to serve notice in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) and trigger the stop-time rule, the government must serve a specific document that includes all the information identified in Section 1229(a), or whether the government can serve that information over the course of as many documents and as much time as it chooses.Niz-Chavez v. Barr
Subsequent ActionApril 29, 2021
On April 29, 2021, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Niz-Chavez v. Garland. The Court held that in order to trigger cancellation of removal's stop-time rule, the government must issue a single document that includes all of the criteria required by 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1).
**Litigation is listed for informational purposes and is not comprehensive. For the current status of legal challenges, check other sources.**2021.04.29 Supreme Court Decision in Niz-Chavez v. Garland
Biden Administration ActionJune 9, 2021
This Biden administration action clarifies ICE's position following the resolution of litigation related to the Trump-era policy identified in this entry.
On June 9, 2021, ICE issued guidance clarifying its litigation position regarding motions to reopen filed by individuals eligible for cancellation of removal following the Supreme Court's decision in Niz-Chavez v. Garland. The guidance states that "for 180 days from the date of the Supreme Court’s decision (i.e., until November 16, 2021), ICE attorneys handling removal cases before the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) will presumptively exercise their prosecutorial discretion to join or not oppose a motion to reopen filed by such noncitizens who demonstrate that they are prima facie eligible for cancellation of removal."2021.06.09 ICE Interim Litigation Position Regarding Motions to Reopen in Light of the U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Niz-Chavez v. Garland
- New Policy Document
Subsequent Action Document
- Biden Administration Action Document