Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-14-13080/USCOURTS-ca11-14-13080-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevon O'Garro
Petitioner
U.S. Attorney General
Respondent

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-13080

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A099-140-529

KEVON O'GARRO,

 Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(May 22, 2015)

Before WILSON, JULIE CARNES, and FAY Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:

Kevon O’Garro, a native and citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, seeks review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) final order affirming the Immigration 

USCA11 Case: 14-13080 Date Filed: 05/22/2015 Page: 1 of 5
2

Judge’s (IJ) decision to pretermit his application for cancellation of removal, 

pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 240A(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229b(b)(1). O’Garro argues that INA § 239(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(l) is 

unambiguous and must be honored. Thus, his continuous physical presence in the 

U.S., for purposes of eligibility for cancellation of removal, was not stopped when 

he was served with a notice to appear (NTA) that lacked the time and place at 

which his initial removal proceeding would be held. Instead, his time was stopped 

by the notice of hearing, which was sent after he was physically present in the U.S. 

for ten years and four months, so he remains eligible for cancellation of removal, 

and his merits hearing in Immigration Court should be resumed.

We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent that the BIA 

expressly adopts the IJ’s decision. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 

(11th Cir. 2001). Where the BIA agrees with the IJ’s reasoning, we review the IJ’s 

decision to that extent. See Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1350 

(11th Cir. 2009). Here, the BIA did not expressly adopt the IJ’s decision but 

agreed with the IJ’s findings. Thus, we review both decisions to that extent. See 

id. Although we typically lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of an INA 

§ 240A, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b application for cancellation of removal pursuant to INA 

§ 242(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), we retain jurisdiction to review 

questions of law. INA § 242(a)(2)(D), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Alhuay v. U.S. 

USCA11 Case: 14-13080 Date Filed: 05/22/2015 Page: 2 of 5
3

Att’y Gen., 661 F.3d 534, 549 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). To the extent that the 

BIA’s or IJ’s decision was based on a legal determination, we review that decision 

de novo. Nreka v. U. S. Att’y Gen., 408 F.3d 1361, 1368 (11th Cir. 2005).

Section 240A(b)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), states, in relevant 

part, that “[t]he Attorney General may cancel removal of, and adjust to the status 

of an [immigrant] lawfully admitted for permanent residence, an [immigrant] who 

is inadmissible or deportable from the United States if the [immigrant]—[among 

other requirements] (A) has been physically present in the United States for a 

continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of such 

application . . . ” However, “[a]ny period of . . . continuous physical presence in 

the United States shall be deemed to end . . . when the [immigrant] is served a 

notice to appear under [INA § 239(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)].” INA § 240A(d)(1), 8 

U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1). This provision is commonly referred to as the “stop-time” 

rule. Tefel v. Reno, 180 F.3d 1286, 1289 (11th Cir. 1999).

Section 239(a)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1), provides, in relevant 

part:

In removal proceedings under [INA§ 240; 8 U.S.C. § 1229a], written 

notice (in this section referred to as a “notice to appear”) shall be 

given . . . to the [immigrant] . . . specifying the following:

(A) The nature of the proceedings against the [immigrant]. 

(B) The legal authority under which the proceedings are 

conducted. 

(C) The acts or conduct alleged to be in violation of law.

USCA11 Case: 14-13080 Date Filed: 05/22/2015 Page: 3 of 5
4

(D) The charges against the [immigrant] and the statutory 

provisions alleged to have been violated.

(G)(i) The time and place at which the proceedings will be 

held.

INA § 239(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1) (emphasis added).

When a statute is ambiguous with respect to a particular issue, a court must 

determine whether the agency’s answer was based on a permissible construction of 

the statute. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843, 104 S. Ct.

2778, 2782 (1984). “[T]he BIA should be accorded Chevron deference as it gives 

ambiguous statutory terms concrete meaning through a process of case-by-case 

adjudication.” INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 425, 119 S. Ct. 1439, 1445 

(1999) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The BIA’s interpretation of the stop-time rule permissibly construes the text 

of the statute and the context in which it appears. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843, 104 S.

Ct. at 2782. The statute identifies a particular form that must be served on the 

individual, but it does not say that only a form that contains every item, including a 

yet-to-be-determined time and date for a hearing, stops the ten-year clock. See 

INA § 240A(d)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1). In In re Camarillo, the BIA stated that 

“the best reading of the statute as a whole is that Congress intended the phrase 

‘under section [1229](a)’ after ‘notice to appear’ to specify the document the DHS 

must serve on the [immigrant] to trigger the ‘stop-time’ rule.” 25 I. & N. Dec. 644, 

647 (2011). According to the BIA, “[a] primary purpose of [an NTA] is to inform 

USCA11 Case: 14-13080 Date Filed: 05/22/2015 Page: 4 of 5
5

an [immigrant] that the Government intends to have him or her removed from the 

country, but the inclusion of the date and time of the hearing is not necessary for 

the Government’s intention in this regard to be conveyed.” Id. at 650. We defer to 

the BIA’s interpretation of the stop-time rule. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. at 425, 

119 S. Ct. at 1445. Thus, the BIA did not err in determining that O’Garro did not 

establish his eligibility for cancellation of removal. Upon review of the record and 

consideration of the parties’ briefs, we deny O’Garro’s petition.

PETITION DENIED.

USCA11 Case: 14-13080 Date Filed: 05/22/2015 Page: 5 of 5