This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Adam G. Unikowski, Esq., appeared on behalf of the petitioner, and Frederick Liu, Assistant to the Solicitor General, appeared on behalf of the respondent.
Background and question before the Court
What each side argues
Petitioner
The petitioner argues that an offense renders an alien inadmissible if the immigration judge finds the offense makes the alien inadmissible at the removal hearing that triggers the stop‑time rule.
According to Mr. Unikowski, the petitioner contends that Congress intended the statute to allow eligibility for discretionary relief, noting that the offense at issue was not serious enough to make the alien deportable and that Congress left the door open for cancellation of removal.
According to Mr. Unikowski, the petitioner further asserts that crimes that make the alien deportable do not foreclose eligibility for cancellation of removal because Congress expressly left that possibility open.
The petitioner maintains that the word “inadmissible” should have a consistent meaning throughout the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Government
According to Government, the government concedes that the terms “inadmissible” and “removable” in the stop‑time rule refer to the charge at the removal proceeding, not to the alien’s status.
What happened at oral argument
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- e192567495126642b0a6-r1-14ccda568e211f8f.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 27, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.