PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________ No: 20-1843 _______________ ABNER ANTONIO ARCOS SANCHEZ, a/k/a Abner Arcos, a/k/a Abner Sanchez, a/k/a Abner A. Snachez-Acros, a/k/a Abner Antonio Acros-Sanchez, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _______________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA 1:A204-362-439) Immigration Judge: Mirlande Tadal _______________ Argued: January 26, 2021 Before: JORDAN, MATEY, Circuit Judges, and HORAN,* District Judge. (Filed: May 5, 2021) _______________ Jerard A. Gonzalez [ARGUED] BASTARRIKA SOTO GONZALEZ & SOMOHANO 3 Garret Mountain Plaza - Suite 302 Woodland Park, NJ 07424 Cheryl Lin 338 Palisade Avenue - Suite 255 Jersey City, NJ 07307 Counsel for Petitioner William P. Barr Micah Engler Brendan P. Hogan [ARGUED] UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Counsel for Respondent _______________ OPINION OF THE COURT * Honorable Marilyn Horan, United States District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. 2 _______________ HORAN, District Judge. Abner Antonio Arcos Sanchez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) decision dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The Board also denied Arcos Sanchez’s request for remand to the IJ for administrative closure, which would have given time for renewal of his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) status. On this latter issue, the Board cited then Attorney General Sessions’ decision in Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I. & N. Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018). The Board determined that the IJ and the Board did not have authority to administratively close proceedings, unless a regulation or a previous judicially approved settlement expressly authorizes such an action” as set forth in Castro-Tum. A.R. 4. As such, remand for consideration of administrative closure, while Arcos Sanchez pursued DACA status renewal, was denied. For the reasons we discuss below, we grant Arcos Sanchez’s petition for review, vacate the Board’s decision, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. Facts and Procedural History In 2002, at the age of seven, Arcos Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without 3 inspection. In 2012, he applied for DACA1 status, which was approved. The Department of Homeland Security periodically granted his requests for renewals. On April 8, 2019, Arcos Sanchez was arrested and charged in New Jersey with sexual assault and endangering the welfare of a child. On May 17, 2019, based upon that arrest and those charges, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) revoked Arcos Sanchez’s DACA status. In June 2019, the 1 Since June 15, 2012, DACA has granted certain immigrant children and young adults deferred action, a form of prosecutorial discretion where the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) formally decides not to pursue removal of otherwise deportable non-citizens. See DHS, Memorandum from Sec’y of Homeland Sec. Janet Napolitano, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals