On June 8, the Supreme Court announced that it will hear an immigration case on the stop-time rule in its next term. The stop-time rule, which stops the clock on time accrued by the immigrant to become eligible for relief from deportation, is triggered when the government sends the immigrant a “notice to appear” with specific information about the removal proceedings. The specific issue that the Supreme Court will consider is whether all the necessary information must be provided to the immigrant in a single document or if the government can trigger the rule by providing multiple documents. The Supreme Court’s next term starts in October of this year.
Home » Immigration Updates » The Supreme Court has granted a case on the stop-time rule for next term.
The Supreme Court has granted a case on the stop-time rule for next term.
Related Posts
Supreme Court to review Trump’s asylum policy and use of military funds for border wall.
On Monday, the Supreme Court said it would review cases concerning the Trump administration’s use of Defense Department money to build the border wall and…
It is unclear if the Trump administration will comply with a judicial order to accept new DACA applications.
It is unclear if the Trump administration will comply with a judicial order to accept new DACA applications. Last month, the Supreme Court held that…
The Supreme Court has decided not to hear a challenge to a California sanctuary law.
On June 15, the Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari in a case challenging a California law limiting information-sharing with federal immigration enforcement. Since the 9th Circuit…
The Supreme Court ruled that LGBT workers are protected from workplace discrimination.
On June 15, the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII forbids workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The ruling was based on…
Supreme Court Rules Asylum Seekers Cannot Seek Federal Court Review of Expedited Removal Orders
In Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, the U.S. Supreme Court held that restrictions on the ability of asylum seekers to obtain review of expedited removal…