Barton v. Barr
Headline: Green-card holders with certain early criminal offenses lose cancellation relief as the Court affirms denial when listed crimes occurred during the first seven years of residence.
Holding:
- Makes it harder for long‑time green‑card holders with listed offenses during first seven years to win cancellation.
- Lets immigration judges deny cancellation even if removal charges differ from earlier crimes.
- Resolves a federal split and affects many cancellation appeals nationwide.
Summary
Background
Andre Barton is a Jamaican national and a lawful permanent resident (a green-card holder). Over 12 years he committed several state crimes: a firearms offense, two drug convictions, and earlier aggravated assault offenses. The Government began removal proceedings and an immigration judge found him removable based on the firearms and drug convictions. Barton applied for cancellation of removal, which requires seven years of continuous residence after admission. The stop-time rule says the seven-year count ends if the resident “committed an offense referred to in section 1182(a)(2)” that renders the person inadmissible or removable. The immigration judge, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the Eleventh Circuit concluded Barton’s aggravated assault, committed during his first seven years, triggered the stop-time rule and made him ineligible.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether the offense that blocks cancellation must be the same as the offense of removal. The majority held it need not be. It explained the cancellation rule functions like a recidivist statute: Congress meant immigration judges to consider prior crimes committed during the initial seven years, and the date of commission is controlling. For crimes involving moral turpitude, conviction or admission renders the person “inadmissible” under §1182(a)(2). The Court rejected Barton’s structural and textual arguments about the word “inadmissible” and surplusage and affirmed the Eleventh Circuit.
Real world impact
The decision means immigration judges can deny cancellation when a green-card holder committed a §1182(a)(2) offense during their first seven years, even if that offense differs from the one leading to removal. The opinion resolves a split among Courts of Appeals and will affect many pending and future cancellation applications. This ruling addresses statutory eligibility and does not itself substitute for an individual judge’s discretionary choice.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Sotomayor dissented, arguing “inadmissible” should apply only to people seeking admission, so lawfully admitted residents like Barton should not be deemed inadmissible for the stop-time rule; she would have allowed Barton to seek cancellation.
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?