Cancellation of Removal for Non-Permanent Residents and the Ten-Year Rule
## The Basic Remedy
Non-lawful-permanent-resident cancellation of removal under INA section 240A(b)(1) is a defense available only in removal proceedings. It can produce permanent residence, but the standard is demanding and Congress generally limits grants to 4,000 per fiscal year.
An applicant must prove ten years of continuous physical presence, good moral character during the required period, no disqualifying conviction under specified immigration provisions, and “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative. The qualifying relative must be a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse, parent, or child. Hardship to the applicant matters only insofar as it affects that relative.
## Counting Ten Years
The ten-year period is measured backward under rules that can stop or break continuous presence. Under the stop-time rule, accrual ends when DHS serves a statutorily sufficient notice to appear under controlling law or when the person commits certain offenses referred to in INA section 212(a)(2), whichever applies first. After Pereira v. Sessions and Niz-Chavez v. Garland, a notice lacking required time-and-place information may not trigger the stop-time rule merely because a later hearing notice supplied it. Case-specific circuit and agency precedent remains important.
A departure longer than 90 days, or departures totaling more than 180 days, ordinarily breaks continuous physical presence. Other departures may also matter, including a departure under threat of removal. Evidence can include tax records, leases, school and medical records, pay statements, church records, money-transfer receipts, and credible testimony. Gaps should be confronted rather than hidden.
## Hardship Is the Highest Hurdle
Ordinary family separation, reduced income, and difficulty relocating usually are not enough. The court evaluates hardship cumulatively. Strong cases often involve a qualifying child’s serious medical or developmental needs, a parent’s dependence on the applicant for care, lack of treatment abroad, special-education disruption, dangerous local conditions, or an unusual financial dependency.
Evidence should connect facts to consequences. Medical diagnoses need records and, when possible, a clinician’s explanation of treatment and prognosis. Country-condition reports should address the proposed destination and the relative’s particular vulnerability. A household budget can show why losing the applicant’s income would threaten housing or care. The family should address both possible outcomes: relatives remaining in the United States and relatives relocating.
## Character, Crimes, and Discretion
Good moral character is not simply the absence of convictions. False testimony for an immigration benefit, certain alcohol-related conduct, failure to support dependents, tax problems, and other behavior may damage eligibility or discretion. Some offenses bar relief even without a felony label, and the immigration consequences depend on statutes, records of conviction, and dates.
Even after proving statutory eligibility, the applicant must persuade the judge to grant relief as a matter of discretion. Rehabilitation, community service, tax compliance, caregiving, and candor can be significant.
Cancellation is not an application someone can safely initiate outside proceedings, and asking DHS to place a person in court creates substantial risk. Anyone considering it should first examine alternative relief, criminal history, the charging document, presence evidence, qualifying relatives, and the consequences if the judge denies the case.