RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 20a0178p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT LUIS EDUARDO CUELLAR GARCIA, ┐ Petitioner, │ │ > No. 19-3489 v. │ │ │ WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, │ Respondent. │ ┘ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals; No. A 209 003 936. Decided and Filed: June 8, 2020 Before: MERRITT, THAPAR, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges. _________________ COUNSEL ON BRIEF: Juan P. Caballero, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW, East Lansing, Michigan, for Petitioner. Jaclyn E. Shea, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. THAPAR, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which LARSEN, J., joined. MERRITT, J. (pp. 7–18), delivered a separate dissenting opinion. _________________ OPINION _________________ THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Luis Eduardo Cuellar Garcia sought asylum in the United States. The question here is who should have decided his fate: an immigration judge or the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Garcia argues that the No. 19-3489 Cuellar Garcia v. Barr Page 2 immigration judge lacked jurisdiction over his case. We disagree and deny his petition for review. Garcia illegally entered the United States eight days before his eighteenth birthday. At that time, an immigration official found him to be an “unaccompanied alien child.” 6 U.S.C. § 279(g)(2). Over a year later, Garcia applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, claiming that he had been threatened by gangs in his home country (El Salvador). And based on his purported status as an “unaccompanied alien child,” he sought relief from the USCIS. But instead, an immigration judge took jurisdiction over his case, reasoning that Garcia was now nineteen years old and thus no longer a “child.” The immigration judge reviewed Garcia’s case and eventually denied his claims for relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals largely affirmed that ruling on the merits but remanded the case so that the immigration judge could determine whether to continue removal proceedings while Garcia pursued adjustment of status. The immigration judge denied the continuance. The Board affirmed. Garcia then moved for a stay of removal pending this petition for review. But our court denied the stay. Garcia has since been removed from the country. In his petition for review, Garcia challenges his immigration proceedings on three grounds: (1) that the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction over his case; (2) that the judge applied the wrong legal standard to his claim under the Convention Against Torture; and (3) that the judge wrongly denied his motion for a continuance. We review the legal questions presented in the petition de novo. See Hernandez v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 430, 433 (6th Cir. 2019). Jurisdiction. Garcia first challenges the immigration judge’s jurisdiction over his case. Specifically, he points to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(C), which provides that USCIS “shall have initial jurisdiction over any asylum application filed by an unaccompanied alien child (as defined in section 279(g) of Title 6).” According to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals