UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 17, 2022

Christopher M. Wolpert FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court _________________________________

MAYRA VERONICA ESTRADA- CARDONA,

Petitioner,

v. No. 21-9562

MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General,

Respondent. _________________________________

Petition for Review of an Order from the Board of Immigration Appeals

_________________________________

Jennifer M. Smith of Jennifer Smith Law Office, Glenwood Spring, Colorado (Mark R. Barr of Lichter Immigration, Denver, Colorado, with her on the briefs), for Petitioner.

Keith McManus, Office of Immigration Litigation (Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; Jessica E. Burns, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation; Spencer S. Shucard, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, on the brief), United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. _________________________________

Before HARTZ, BALDOCK, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge. _________________________________ Appellate Case: 21-9562 Document: 010110725741 Date Filed: 08/17/2022 Page: 2

The Attorney General may allow otherwise-removable aliens to remain in the

country if, among other things, they have accrued 10 years of continuous physical

presence in the United States. We call this form of discretionary relief “cancellation

of removal.” Under the statutory “stop-time rule,” the period of continuous physical

presence ends (A) when the alien is served with a notice to appear, or (B) when the

alien has committed certain criminal offenses. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1). Nothing more,

nothing less. In the latest installment of “What Triggers the Stop-Time Rule?” the

Government asks us to hold that the issuance of a final order of removal is a third,

extra-statutory event sufficient to stop the clock. The plain language of the statute

supports no such conclusion. Declining to read ambiguity into a statute where none

exists, we hold a final order of removal does not stop the accrual of continuous physical

presence.

I.

In 2002, Petitioner Mayra V. Estrada-Cardona entered the United States on a

tourist visa which she subsequently overstayed. She resided in the United States with

her two United States citizen children: A.E. and L.E. A.E. suffers from mental and

physical disabilities, some of which are likely to be lifelong. While in the United

States, Petitioner played a key role in ensuring A.E. received physical therapy and

special education support—both vital to A.E.’s wellbeing and continued progress.

All was quiet until May 29, 2009, when police arrested Petitioner for driving

without a license. She pleaded guilty and paid the associated fines. As a result of the

traffic violation, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) detained Petitioner

2 Appellate Case: 21-9562 Document: 010110725741 Date Filed: 08/17/2022 Page: 3

and began removal proceedings. Pursuant to the then-prevailing practice, the

Government issued Petitioner a notice to appear ordering her to appear before an

immigration judge on a date and time “to be set.” Five months later, the Government

sent Petitioner a notice of hearing setting the date and time of her hearing.

At the hearing, Petitioner appeared unrepresented and conceded the charge

contained in the notice to appea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document