Barton v. Barr
Headline: Lawful permanent residents lose cancellation option when past serious crimes committed during early residence block relief, even if those crimes were not the ones used to remove them, affecting many green-card holders.
Holding: The Court ruled that a green-card holder is ineligible for cancellation of removal if he committed an offense listed in §1182(a)(2) during his initial seven years of residence, even if that offense was not the removal offense.
- Requires judges to consider early criminal records when denying relief
- Makes some long-term green-card holders ineligible for cancellation of removal
- Affirms that non-removal offenses can still block relief
Summary
Background
Andre Barton is a Jamaican national and longtime green-card holder who was convicted of several state crimes over many years, including a 1996 aggravated-assault incident, a 1996 firearms offense, and drug convictions in 2007 and 2008. The Government began removal proceedings in 2016 based on the firearms and drug crimes. Barton applied for cancellation of removal, a form of relief that would let him stay if he met strict eligibility rules about how long he had lived in the U.S. and about certain prior crimes.
Reasoning
The core question was whether an earlier crime that is listed in the immigration inadmissibility rules can block cancellation of removal even if that earlier crime was not one of the offenses used to remove the person. The Court agreed with the Immigration Board and most federal appeals courts: the statute operates like a recidivist rule. If a green-card holder committed an offense listed in 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(2) during the first seven years after admission and that offense rendered the person inadmissible (for example by conviction), then the person is not eligible for cancellation of removal, regardless of which crime actually triggered the removal proceeding.
Real world impact
The ruling means immigration judges must consider an applicant’s full criminal record when deciding eligibility for cancellation of removal. Longtime residents with disqualifying early crimes can lose the chance for this relief even if those crimes were not the formal removal grounds. The decision affirms the Eleventh Circuit and follows most circuits; Congress remains free to change the law.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Sotomayor dissented, arguing the statute preserves a two-track distinction: "inadmissible" should apply to people seeking entry, not to those already admitted, and the majority improperly collapses that distinction.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?