Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Gilberto GARCIA-ROMO, Petitioner, v. Merrick B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
OPINION
Gilberto Garcia-Romo is a noncitizen from Mexico. In his immigration proceedings Garcia-Romo conceded his removability, but he applied for discretionary cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). To qualify for cancellation of removal, a noncitizen must have been physically present in the U.S. for the ten years preceding his cancellation-of-removal application. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A). But that physical-presence period is deemed to stop when a noncitizen receives a proper notice to appear for his immigration proceeding. Id. § 1229b(d)(1).
Garcia-Romo received a purported notice to appear in two parts: he received a document entitled “Notice to Appear” that charged him as subject to removal; then, two months later, he received a second document providing the date and time of his hearing. Garcia-Romo v. Barr, 940 F.3d 192, 197 (6th Cir. 2019). The first time this case came before us, we held that the combination of those two documents sufficed to stop Garcia-Romo's physical-presence period, which meant that he had not reached the ten-year requirement. Id. at 201, 205. In Niz-Chavez v. Garland, the Supreme Court reached the opposite conclusion for a petitioner who received a combination of documents similar to those that Garcia-Romo received. ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 1474, 1486, ––– L.Ed.2d –––– (2021). The Court held that the government must provide a single document containing all of the information required by 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) for the document to be a notice to appear and thus stop a noncitizen's physical-presence period. Id. So the Court vacated our decision in Garcia-Romo's case and remanded it to us. Garcia-Romo v. Garland, No. 19-1316, ––– U.S. ––––, ––– S.Ct. ––––, ––– L.Ed.2d ––––, 2021 WL 1725158 (U.S. May 3, 2021).
Niz-Chavez makes clear that the combination of the two documents Garcia-Romo received did not trigger the stop-time rule. 141 S. Ct. at 1486. Because that was the basis for the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals below, we grant Garcia-Romo's petition for review, vacate the BIA's decision, and remand for proceedings consistent with Niz-Chavez.
JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge.
Was this helpful?
Thank you. Your response has been sent.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: Case No. 18-3857
Decided: June 21, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)