Cancellation of Removal: The 10-Year and LPR Rules

What cancellation of removal is

Cancellation of removal is a defense raised in immigration court, after the Department of Homeland Security has started removal proceedings with a Notice to Appear. It is not a benefit you can file for ahead of time at a USCIS office. EOIR's regulations list it among the forms of relief a respondent may apply for during removal proceedings (8 C.F.R. § 1240.11). For the wider picture of how a deportation case is fought, see our removal defense hub.

Both forms of cancellation are discretionary: the statute says the Attorney General “may” cancel removal. Meeting every eligibility requirement makes a person eligible; the judge must still decide that the person deserves the relief. The applicant carries the burden of proving both eligibility and that discretion should be exercised in their favor (8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d)).

Cancellation for lawful permanent residents — INA § 240A(a)

A green-card holder can become removable, most often because of a criminal conviction. Under § 240A(a), the judge may cancel removal of a lawful permanent resident who:

1. has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence for at least 5 years;
2. has resided in the United States continuously for 7 years after having been admitted in any status; and
3. has not been convicted of any aggravated felony.

There is no hardship requirement for this form. If it is granted, the person keeps their permanent resident status. Because the relief is discretionary, the judge weighs the positive factors in the person's life — such as family ties, length of residence, employment, and evidence of rehabilitation — against the negative ones, such as the nature of the criminal record. The BIA set out that balancing in Matter of C-V-T-, 22 I&N Dec. 7 (BIA 1998) (EOIR Volume 22 decisions).

Cancellation for non-permanent residents — INA § 240A(b)(1)

The second form is for people who do not have a green card. Under § 240A(b)(1), the judge may cancel removal and grant lawful permanent residence to a person who:

1. has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of at least 10 years immediately before applying;
2. has been a person of good moral character during that period (the term is defined, largely by listing what disqualifies someone, in INA § 101(f), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f));
3. has not been convicted of an offense described in INA § 212(a)(2), § 237(a)(2), or § 237(a)(3); and
4. shows that removal would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a spouse, parent, or child who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

If granted, the person's removal is cancelled and their status is adjusted to that of a lawful permanent resident — which is why this form is subject to an annual cap, discussed below.

A separate rule for survivors of abuse — INA § 240A(b)(2)

The statute has a distinct path for a person who has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by a spouse or parent who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident (or whose child has been). It requires 3 years of continuous physical presence rather than 10, good moral character, the absence of certain criminal and security grounds, and “extreme hardship” to the applicant, the applicant's child, or the applicant's parent — a lower standard than the one in § 240A(b)(1). Service of a Notice to Appear does not stop the clock for this form (§ 240A(b)(2), (d)(1)).

Who cannot receive cancellation

Section 240A(c) lists people who are ineligible for either form, including certain crewmen, certain J-1 exchange visitors, people who ordered, incited, assisted or otherwise participated in the persecution of others, and people who were previously granted cancellation of removal, suspension of deportation, or relief under former INA § 212(c). In practice, this means cancellation is generally available only once in a lifetime.

The “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard

For non-permanent residents, the hardship requirement is usually the hardest part of the case. Three points come straight from the statute and BIA precedent:

• Only qualifying relatives count. The hardship must fall on a U.S.-citizen or permanent-resident spouse, parent, or child — not on the applicant. A “child” is an unmarried person under 21 (INA § 101(b)(1)), and the BIA has held that a child who turns 21 before the case is decided no longer counts as a qualifying relative (Matter of Isidro-Zamorano, 25 I&N Dec. 829 (BIA 2012)).
• The bar is high. In Matter of Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I&N Dec. 56 (BIA 2001), the Board held that the hardship must be “substantially beyond” what would ordinarily be expected when a close family member is removed — though it need not be “unconscionable.” Economic hardship and a lower standard of living alone are generally not enough.
• All the factors are weighed together. Judges consider the relatives' ages, health (including serious medical or special educational needs), family ties in the United States and abroad, and conditions in the country of removal, in the aggregate. Compare Matter of Andazola-Rivas, 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) (standard not met) with Matter of Recinas, 23 I&N Dec. 467 (BIA 2002) (standard met for a single mother of six, four of them U.S.-citizen children, with no family left in her home country). These decisions are listed on EOIR's Volume 23 page.

Whether a judge applied the standard correctly can now be reviewed by the federal courts of appeals: in Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209 (2024), the Supreme Court held that applying the hardship standard to established facts is a mixed question of law and fact that courts may review. Our article on what Wilkinson v. Garland changed explains the ruling.

The stop-time rule

Both main forms depend on a long, unbroken period in the country — 7 years of continuous residence for permanent residents, 10 years of continuous physical presence for everyone else. Under § 240A(d)(1), that period is treated as ending at the earliest of two events:

• when the person is served a Notice to Appear; or
• when the person commits certain offenses referred to in INA § 212(a)(2) that make them inadmissible or removable.

The Supreme Court has shaped both triggers. In Pereira v. Sessions, 585 U.S. 198 (2018), it held that a Notice to Appear that does not state the time and place of the hearing does not stop the clock. In Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U.S. 155 (2021), it held that the notice must be a single document containing all the required information — a later hearing notice cannot fill the gap. And in Barton v. Barr, 590 U.S. 222 (2020), it held that for a permanent resident, an offense listed in § 212(a)(2) committed during the first 7 years stops the clock even if it is not the offense the person is being removed for.

Separately, under § 240A(d)(2), continuous physical presence is broken by a departure of more than 90 days at once, or more than 180 days in total.

The annual cap of 4,000

Section 240A(e)(1) says that no more than 4,000 people in any fiscal year may have their removal cancelled and their status adjusted under this section (the cap also covers the older suspension-of-deportation relief; the statute exempts certain groups). The cap therefore affects non-permanent-resident cancellation, not the § 240A(a) form for green-card holders, who keep the status they already have. Under EOIR's regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 1240.21, once the numbers for a fiscal year are used up, judges and the BIA may reserve decisions in cases they would otherwise grant, and those grants are issued as numbers become available, in order.

How the process works

1. Removal proceedings begin. DHS files a Notice to Appear with the immigration court. At the first (master calendar) hearing, the person responds to the charges and tells the judge which relief they will seek.
2. The application is filed with the court. Permanent residents use Form EOIR-42A; non-permanent residents use Form EOIR-42B, both available on EOIR's forms page. The applicant must follow the court's instructions on the filing fee (or a fee waiver request) and on DHS biometrics.
3. Evidence is gathered. The applicant must prove each element: proof of presence or residence year by year, criminal and court records, evidence of good moral character, and — for non-permanent residents — detailed evidence of the qualifying relatives' circumstances, such as medical and school records.
4. The individual (merits) hearing. The applicant and witnesses testify and are cross-examined by the DHS attorney. The judge decides eligibility and discretion, often at the end of the hearing.
5. Appeal. Either side may appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, generally within 30 days of the decision; BIA precedent decisions are published on EOIR's site. If circumstances change after a final order — for example, new evidence that was not available before — a motion to reopen may be the way back into court.

People who are detained can also apply for cancellation, but their cases move faster and evidence is harder to gather from custody; whether they can be released while the case is pending is decided separately, as explained in our bond hearings guide.

To have a former immigration judge defend your own case in court, see our deportation defense lawyer page. If the judge denies cancellation, see our immigration appeals lawyer page for an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals or a motion to reopen.

Further reading

• Cancellation of Removal: A Plain-English Guide
• Courts Can Review Hardship Denials Now (Wilkinson v. Garland)
• Good Moral Character: What It Means in Immigration Law
• Removal Proceedings: What Happens in Immigration Court
• Grounds of Deportability: Why a Person Already Here Can Be Removed

Carlos Maury, a former U.S. Immigration Judge, leads Carlos Maury Law. To talk about a case, call (213) 769-0050. We speak Spanish.