The Stop-Time Rule in Cancellation of Removal

The "stop-time rule" is the legal switch that freezes the clock on how many years of continuous presence or residence you've built up toward cancellation of removal. Once the clock stops, you stop earning more time — even if you are still physically in the United States. Two events can stop it: the government properly serving you with a Notice to Appear (NTA), or you committing certain crimes. The catch that has driven years of litigation, including two Supreme Court decisions, is that an NTA missing key information may not stop the clock at all — which can mean you actually have more qualifying time than the government's paperwork suggests.

The two clocks that cancellation of removal depends on

Cancellation of removal is a form of relief that lets an immigration judge cancel a removal order and let a person keep or obtain lawful permanent resident status, if they meet strict requirements. The requirements differ depending on whether someone already has a green card:

• Lawful permanent residents (LPRs): generally need at least 7 years of continuous residence in the U.S. after being admitted in any status, among other requirements, under INA § 240A(a).
• Non-LPRs (people without a green card): generally need at least 10 years of continuous physical presence, plus good moral character and proof that removal would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to a qualifying U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, parent, or child, under INA § 240A(b).

Both time periods are governed by the same stop-time rule in INA § 240A(d)(1). It answers one question: on what date did your qualifying years stop adding up?

What actually stops the clock

Under INA § 240A(d)(1), the period of continuous residence or physical presence ends on whichever comes first:

1. Service of a proper Notice to Appear — the charging document that starts removal proceedings, under INA § 239(a); or
2. Commission of certain criminal offenses — specifically offenses referenced in INA § 212(a)(2) that render a person inadmissible under § 212(a)(2) or removable under § 237(a)(2) or § 237(a)(4) (this generally covers certain crimes involving moral turpitude, controlled substance offenses, multiple criminal convictions, and similar grounds) — the clock stops on the date the offense was committed, not the date of any later conviction or arrest.

Nothing else stops the clock. Being placed in removal proceedings informally, receiving a notice that doesn't meet the statute's requirements, or simply being told you're "out of status" does not, by itself, freeze your years. The Board of Immigration Appeals has also held that entry of a final removal order, by itself, does not stop the accrual of time for non-LPR cancellation eligibility.

Why the Notice to Appear has to be exactly right

INA § 239(a) spells out what a Notice to Appear must contain, including the nature of the proceedings, the legal basis for them, and — critically — the time and place of the hearing. For years, the Department of Homeland Security often served NTAs that left the hearing date and time blank, planning to mail a separate hearing notice later. The Supreme Court has twice rejected that practice as a way of stopping the stop-time clock:

• Pereira v. Sessions (2018): The Court held that an NTA that does not specify the time or place of the removal hearing is not a valid "notice to appear" under the statute, so it does not trigger the stop-time rule.
• Niz-Chavez v. Garland (2021): The Court went further, holding that the government must convey the required information — including the hearing time and place — in a single document. A later, separate hearing notice cannot cure an incomplete NTA. As the Court put it, the government cannot satisfy its statutory duty with a "mishmash" of documents that require the noncitizen to assemble the pieces themselves.

Together, these two decisions mean that if your NTA was missing the hearing date and time when it was first served, the stop-time clock arguably never started running on the date of that NTA — which can allow you to keep accruing continuous residence or physical presence for cancellation of removal purposes even after proceedings began, until a later, statutorily complete document (if any) is served.

Why this can decide a case

The difference of even a few months of continuous presence can be the difference between qualifying and not qualifying for cancellation of removal. Someone who appears to fall just short of the 10-year or 7-year mark under the government's calculation may actually clear the threshold once a defective NTA is set aside for stop-time purposes. This is why immigration attorneys routinely examine the original NTA — and any amended or additional hearing notices — for exactly what information was included and when.

Two things to check on your own NTA

• Does the original NTA state an actual date and time for your hearing, or does it say "to be set" or leave the date/time blank?
• If a specific date and time were missing, was that information ever provided in that same document, or only in a later, separate notice?

These facts — not arguments about fairness — are what determine whether the stop-time rule applies. An immigration judge, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), or a federal circuit court will look at the documents themselves.

This area of law is still actively being litigated

Pereira and Niz-Chavez remain good law, but courts, the BIA, and Congress continue to work out how far they reach. Importantly, these decisions do not answer every question about defective notice. In Campos-Chaves v. Garland (2024), the Supreme Court held that when the government later provides a proper notice of the hearing's time and place under INA § 239(a)(2), a noncitizen who fails to appear generally cannot use the original NTA's missing-date defect to rescind and reopen an in absentia removal order. That decision is about reopening in absentia orders — a different question from whether the stop-time clock was triggered — but it shows that the reach of Pereira and Niz-Chavez is still being defined and does not automatically win every notice-based argument. Litigation and agency guidance since these decisions have addressed related questions, including:

• Whether a defective NTA affects the immigration court's jurisdiction over the case at all (separate from the stop-time question) — courts and the BIA have generally treated this as a distinct issue from stop-time.
• How stop-time rules interact with in absentia removal orders and motions to reopen (the subject of Campos-Chaves).
• How the BIA and circuit courts treat amended or corrected NTAs, and whether later filings can retroactively fix an initial defect.

Because the case law is still developing and can vary somewhat between the federal circuit courts of appeals, do not assume a stop-time argument will automatically succeed based on general information like this. Confirm the current state of the law in your circuit, and how it applies to your specific NTA and hearing notices, with a qualified immigration attorney or your case's actual record. Check the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) at justice.gov/eoir for current BIA precedent decisions, and consult USCIS at uscis.gov for procedural guidance.

What to do if you think stop-time might help your case

1. Get a complete copy of your immigration court record — including the original NTA as filed with the court and any subsequent hearing notices — from your attorney, accredited representative, or by requesting your record of proceedings.
2. Compare the dates. Note the date the original NTA was served on you and whether it contained a specific hearing date and time.
3. Calculate your continuous residence or presence using the earliest date the clock could arguably have stopped versus the date on the original, possibly incomplete NTA.
4. Raise the argument in proceedings — this is done through your attorney or accredited representative in filings and hearings before the immigration judge; it is not something to raise informally with DHS or ICE.
5. Watch every deadline in your case regardless of this issue. A strong stop-time argument does not pause other deadlines — including deadlines to file applications, respond to the court, or appeal an adverse decision. Missing those deadlines can forfeit relief even in an otherwise strong case.

A note on fees and forms

Cancellation of removal applications are filed on Form EOIR-42A (for lawful permanent residents) or Form EOIR-42B (for non-permanent residents) with the immigration court. Filing fees for these forms have changed in recent years and are set by federal regulation, not by this article — confirm the current fee and any fee waiver policy directly with EOIR at justice.gov/eoir before filing, since paying an outdated fee amount can result in a rejected filing.

Beware of notario fraud

Only an attorney licensed to practice law or a representative accredited by the Department of Justice can lawfully represent you in immigration court. "Notarios," immigration consultants, and unlicensed preparers who promise to fix your NTA, stop your case, or guarantee cancellation of removal are frequently frauds — and their mistakes can cause real harm, including missed deadlines and deportation. Verify any representative's status before paying for help, and consider the Department of Justice's list of recognized organizations and accredited representatives, available through justice.gov/eoir.

This article is general legal information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Because stop-time and NTA-defect law is still being litigated and can vary by circuit, consult a qualified immigration attorney or a DOJ-accredited representative about your specific case.