Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-459_1o13.pdf
Page Number: 19

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

15 

Opinion of the Court 

B 
The  Government  and  the  dissent  next  contend  that 
Congress’  use  of  the  word  “under”  in  the  stop-time  rule 
renders the statute ambiguous.  Brief for Respondent 22–
23;  post,  at  4–5.  Recall  that  the  stop-time  rule  provides
that  “any  period  of  . . .  continuous  physical  presence”  is 
“deemed  to  end  . . .  when  the  alien  is  served  a  notice  to 
appear under section 1229(a).”  §1229b(d)(1)(A).  According 
to  the  Government,  the  word  “under”  in  that  provision
means  “subject  to,”  “governed  by,”  or  “issued  under  the 
authority of.”  Brief for Respondent 24.  The dissent offers 
yet  another  alternative,  insisting  that  “under”  can  also 
mean  “authorized  by.”  Post,  at  4.  Those  definitions,  the 
Government and dissent maintain, support the BIA’s view
that  the  stop-time  rule  applies  so  long  as  DHS  serves  a
notice  that  is  “authorized  by,”  or  “subject  to  or  governed
by, or issued under the authority of ” §1229(a), even if the 
notice  bears  none  of  the  time-and-place  information  re-
quired  by  that  provision.  See  Brief  for  Respondent  24; 
post, at 4–5. 

We disagree.  It is, of course, true that “[t]he word  ‘un-
der’ is [a] chameleon ” that “ ‘must draw its meaning from 
its context.’ ”  Kucana v. Holder, 558 U. S. 233, 245 (2010) 
(quoting Ardestani v. INS, 502 U. S. 129, 135 (1991)).  But 
nothing  in  the  text  or  context  here  supports  either  the 
Government’s  or  the  dissent’s  preferred  definition  of  “un-
der.”  Based  on  the  plain  language  and  statutory  context 
discussed  above,  we  think  it  obvious  that  the  word  “un-

—————— 

6–7.  That argument compares apples to oranges.  Even if the stop-time
rule  sometimes  applies  retroactively  to  an  order  to  show  cause,  that
provides scant support for the dissent’s view that, under the new post-
IIRIRA  statutory  regime,  an  entirely  different  document  called  a 
“notice to appear,” which, by statute, must specify the time and place of 
removal  proceedings,  see  §1229(a)(1)(G)(i),  need  not  include  such 
information to trigger the stop-time rule.