Immigration · Primary-source case analysis

Barton: An Inadmissibility Offense Triggered the Stop-Time Rule for an Admitted Resident

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published September 9, 2026

Barton v. Barr interpreted the stop-time rule governing a lawful permanent resident's eligibility for cancellation of removal after criminal offenses during the first seven years of residence.

Barton sought cancellation after removal charges

Barton, a lawful permanent resident, was found removable on firearms and drug grounds. He sought cancellation, which required seven years of continuous residence after admission.

The aggravated assaults occurred within seven years

Barton committed aggravated-assault offenses during the initial seven-year period and was later convicted. The immigration judge treated the offenses as crimes involving moral turpitude referenced in section 1182(a)(2).

The stop-time offense need not be the removal charge

The Court read inadmissibility as a statutory status that can carry consequences for an admitted resident. The offense stopping time did not have to be charged, chargeable, or independently used as the ground of removal.

The ineligibility ruling was affirmed

Because the qualifying offenses were committed during the initial period and later rendered Barton inadmissible, the Court held that the residence clock stopped and affirmed denial of cancellation eligibility.

Key takeaways

• Build a dated chart of every admission, residence period, offense conduct, conviction, and removal charge.
• Distinguish the offense triggering the stop-time rule from the charged ground of removal.
• Apply categorical and statutory-offense analysis before assuming section 1182(a)(2) coverage.
• Check current statutes and controlling circuit law before calculating cancellation eligibility.