Immigration · Primary-source case analysis

Barton: An Inadmissibility Offense Can Trigger the Cancellation Stop-Time Rule

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published April 17, 2026 · Updated October 18, 2026

Decision: Barton v. Barr, 590 U.S. 222 (2020).

Barton reads the cancellation-of-removal stop-time rule by separating the offense that triggers removal from an earlier offense that cuts off the required period of continuous residence.

Removability and cancellation

Lawful permanent resident Andre Barton was found removable based on firearms and drug offenses. He sought cancellation, which required seven years of continuous residence after admission. The immigration judge held that aggravated-assault offenses committed within those seven years triggered the stop-time rule.

The triggering offense need not be the removal charge

The Court distinguished the statute’s two steps. First, identify an offense referred to in section 1182(a)(2) committed during the initial seven years. Second, determine what that referenced ground requires to render the person inadmissible. For the moral-turpitude ground in Barton, a conviction or qualifying admission was also required, even though commission supplied the date stopping time. Barton, slip op. at 9–10. A bare arrest date does not perform both tasks.

Inadmissibility can operate as a statutory status

Barton argued that an admitted resident could not be rendered inadmissible without an admission proceeding. The majority read the term as a statutory status used in several contexts, not just a physical admission decision. It also rejected his proposed extra requirement that the offense be chargeable as a removal ground. Barton, slip op. at 13–17. That does not mean every deportability offense independently triggers this branch: The text still begins with an offense referred to in section 1182(a)(2).

Disposition and timing

The majority acknowledged that its reading left some statutory language redundant, but refused to use that redundancy to add a charged-offense requirement absent from the text. Barton, slip op. at 15–17. It affirmed the Eleventh Circuit. The residence chronology and later conviction were separate parts of the analysis, not interchangeable dates.

Key takeaways

• The cancellation stop-time offense need not be the charged removal ground.
• Screen all section 1182(a)(2) offenses within the initial seven years.
• Commission and conviction dates perform different statutory work.
• Lawful admission does not prevent inadmissibility from operating in other INA provisions.