这边提到一个Cancellation Of Removal的概念，有意思的是最高法院在这个问题上还是干了些人事的。Cancellation Of Removal是一个discretionary relief，即使符合所有条件也不一定被批准，但是有了以后至少给“人虽然黑着，但是是个好人，留着没坏处，赶走了反而伤害美国利益”的人一条出路。
Cancellation of Removal分为两种，第一种是针对已有绿卡的取消递解(8 USC 1229(b)(a))，还有一种就是被戏称为“十年绿卡的”的针对没身份的人取消递解并且给与绿卡(8 USC 1229(b)(b))，原文是
(b)Cancellation of removal and adjustment of status for certain nonpermanent residents
(1)In general
The Attorney General may cancel removal of, and adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States if the alien—
(A)has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of such application;
(B)has been a person of good moral character during such period;
(C)has not been convicted of an offense under section 1182(a)(2), 1227(a)(2), or 1227(a)(3) of this title, subject to paragraph (5); and
(D)establishes that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
注意到(b)(1)(A)里的“10 years”这个居住要求。以及，有停止计算累计时间的规则
(d)Special rules relating to continuous residence or physical presence
(1)Termination of continuous period
For purposes of this section, any period of continuous residence or continuous physical presence in the United States shall be deemed to end (A) except in the case of an alien who applies for cancellation of removal under subsection (b)(2), when the alien is served a notice to appear under section 1229(a) of this title,…
由于Cancellation of Removal这个申请是在递解程序中提出，所以当事人需要被启动递解程序，但是启动递解程序又不能太早因为一发Notice To Appear (NTA)就停止计时了。
于是，为了多赶人，2018年之前政府在干这样一件事情：虽然移民法庭档期太满暂时无法排下，但是先给非法移民们发时间为TBD的NTA把十年计时给停掉。
于是有了Pereira：巴西人Pereira 2000年以visitor签证入境，19岁，逾期滞留，然后结婚生了两个美国公民女儿。2006年在麻省酒驾被抓，于是DHS给他发了时间TBD的NTA。他给DHS提供了街道地址和用来收信的PO BOX地址。2007年DHS给街道地址而不是PO BOX发了上庭时间，于是他没有收到，于是错过了上庭，移民法庭缺席判决驱逐出境。2013年，他因为晚上开车没有开大灯被抓，然后又转到了DHS重启递解程序，这次他满十年了，于是申请Cancellation Of Removal。
那么问题来了，2006年的那封NTA没写时间，可以以该NTA不符合法定条件而不停止十年的计时吗？移民法庭判他输了，上诉至BIA继续输，上诉至一巡继续输，上诉至最高法院——他赢了。
Pereira案的结果是8:1，Alito dissenting。
Majority意见：The statutory text alone is enough to resolve this case. （法律是：a ‘notice to appear’ … is a written notice … specifying … the time and place at which the removal proceedings will be held.
） 法律清楚到甚至不需要考虑Chevron 原则（当法律用词模糊时，采用agency的interpretation）
你以为这个案件之后，政府就会好好发NTA了？并没有，于是有了Niz-Chavez案。
2005年，危地马拉人Niz-Chavez从南部边境非法入境，有了三个美国公民孩子。2013年3月，政府发了一个不带时间的NTA。2013年5月，政府又单独发了一个带时间的hearing notice。Niz-Chavez申请Cancellation of Removal，恰逢Pereira案判决，然而BIA认为不带时间的NTA+带时间的hearing notice已经符合NTA的条件。于是又上了最高法院。
最高法院6:3判决Niz-Chavez胜：NTA上的时间，必须写在同一份NTA上，这份NTA才算NTA，才可以停止十年的计时。Opinion delivered by Gorsuch, joined by Thomas, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan and Barret. Kavanaugh dissenting, joined by Roberts and Alito. 可以看出Gorsuch作为Scalia替身似的textualist，与Kavanaugh面对“政府要多么严谨地（字面地）遵守法律”的问题上不同的哲学。
判词很字面：
To trigger the stop-time rule, the government must serve “a” notice containing all the information Congress has specified. To an ordinary reader—both in 1996 and today—“a” notice would seem to suggest just that: “a” single document containing the required information, not a mishmash of pieces with some assembly required.
Gorsuch对政府还是挺不满意的：
Anyone who has applied for a passport, filed for Social Security benefits, or sought a license understands the government’s affinity for forms. Make a mistake or skip a page? Go back and try again, sometimes with a penalty for the trouble. But it turns out the federal government finds
some of its forms frustrating too.
At one level, today’s dispute may seem semantic, focused on a single word, a small one at that. But words are how the law constrains power. In this case, the law’s terms ensure that, when the federal government seeks a procedural advantage against an individual, it will at least supply him
with a single and reasonably comprehensive statement of the nature of the proceedings against him. If men must turn square corners when they deal with the government, it cannot be too much to expect the government to turn square corners when it deals with them.