Plaintiffs, Defendants, Facts, Law, Issues & Case of Barton v. Barr (Case Study Sample)

Case Study (Barton v. Barr)
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Title
Date
Case Study (Barton v. Barr)
1. Who are the plaintiffs and defendants in this case?
Typically, in society, different situations occur that require the seeking of justice from a court, which is a legal institution that has been granted the authority of adjudicating legal disputes that exist between different parties. A court is the most popular legal institution that is tasked with the administration of justice in criminal, administrative, and civil matters through the utilization of the rule of law. There are various terms that are used in the court. Terms such as a plaintiff and a defendant are frequently used in a courtroom during the case proceedings. A plaintiff is an individual or entity that files a complaint or lawsuit in a court of law. On the other hand, the sued person is termed as the defendant or the accused. In the case of Barton v. Barr, the plaintiff is Andre Martello Barton since he is the one who petitioned in court, while William P. Barr, Attorney General, is the defendant since he is the one who was charged with a lawsuit.
2. What are the facts of the case?
Andre Barton, who is a native Jamaican citizen, got his admission into the United States of America in 1989 using a B-2 category visitor visa. In 1992, three years after his admission in the country, he became a lawfully-admitted permanent resident. However, in 1996, after residing in the country for barely six years and some months, he was charged and also convicted for being involved in three felonies that include “aggravated assault, first-degree criminal damage to property, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony” (Oyez, 2020). He was also charged and convicted in 2007 and 2008 for violating the Georgia Controlled Substances Act.
As a result of the aforementioned offenses, the Department of Homeland Security summoned Barton, charging him as a deportable or removable person on several grounds. However, Barton conceded to the removal charges based on two charges and denied the other two charges. He also issued a notice that portrayed his intention to seek cancellation as a lawful permanent resident (LPR). The immigration judge decided to sustain the two charges that Barton had conceded, while the other two charges were withdrawn.
Barton then appealed under 8 U.S. Code § 1229b(a) for the cancelation of his removal since the rule grants the attorney general the authority of canceling the removal of an otherwise removal LPR if the person “has resided in the United States continuously for 7 years after having been admitted in any status.” Usually, this condition of residence adheres to the “stop-time rule,” whereby an accruement of continuous or permanent residency is terminated after a person commits or is involved in a “statutorily” described crime or a law-breaking act that renders the person removable or inadmissible (Hawkins, 2021). The government contended that the plaintiff, Barton, hadn’t attained the seven-year period of continuous residency accruement requirements because the crimes he committed in 1996 triggered the “stop-time” rule. However, Barton responded claiming that the crimes he committed in 1996 did not trigger the “stop-time” rule since, as an LPR who was not seeking to be admitted or re-admitted to the U.S., he couldn’t be rendered or considered inadmissible within the meaning of § 1229b(a).
3. Identify the issues in this case.
The first issue is whether a “lawfully admitted permanent resident,” who is not seeking admission, but is seeking cancellation of residence in the United States, can be “rendered inadmissible” for the purpose(s) of “stop-time rule 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1).” The second issue is whether this applies in Barton’s case.
4. What law was involved in the case?
The law that was involved in this case was the “Immigration and Nationality Act (I.N.A.).” According to the “Immigration and Nationality Act (I.N.A.),” Title 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(2), The Attorney General is granted the ability to cancel and remove the lawful permanent residence of an individual who has continuously lived in the country for seven years. Under § 1229b(a)(1) and § 1229b(a)(3), the LPR must have lived in the country for a period of fewer than five years and must not have been convicted or charged with an aggravated felony. In a case where aggravate felonies are committed, the "stop-time rule 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1)” is implemented, pausing “continuous living”
5. How were the issues resolved, and why?
The immigration judge decided that since Barton had committed aggravated assault within seven years of being admitted to the country, those offenses had stopped the clock regarding Barton's continuous residence. In other words, the stop-time rule prevented Barton from being eligible for removal. The majority opinion reinforced the decision. The majority opinion states that an LPR convicted of committing severe crimes “during the initial seven years of residence attains the inadmissible status for the purpose of the stop-time rule” (Oyez, 2020). This is irrespective of whether the resident is seeking to be admitted or re-admitted. Barton is then unqualified for the canceling of removal. Based on this assumption, Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the 5-4 opinion for the majority of the Court (Oyez, 2020). If a noncitizen or anyone seeking admission or re-admission commits an offense and is convicted (section 1182(a)(2) “during the initial seven years of residence, the cancellation of removal applies,” even when the conviction was after the initial seven years. The majority ruled that Barton's offenses were serious, as referenced in section 1182(a)(2), and occurred during the first seven years of residing in the country, thus inclining to the decision that Barton is inadmissible (Oyez, 2020). Barton does not meet the requirements for cancellation of removal, given the circumstances, and this is h