NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 20a0119n.06 Case No. 19-3654 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Feb 25, 2020 EDWIN DOLORES NUNEZ CASTRO, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ) Petitioner, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW v. ) FROM THE UNITED STATES ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, ) APPEALS ) Respondent. ) BEFORE: MOORE, KETHLEDGE and BUSH, Circuit Judges. JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. This appeal presents the same issue that was decided in Garcia-Romo v. Barr, 940 F.3d 192 (6th Cir. 2019): may “a notice to appear” for a removal proceeding under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229(a), 1229b(d)(1) be served upon a noncitizen using multiple installments? Petitioner, Edwin Dolores Nunez Castro, a noncitizen, says no. We said yes in Garcia-Romo. 940 F.3d at 201. We have no license to overturn Garcia-Romo, Salmi v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 774 F.2d 685, 689 (6th Cir. 1985), and Castro does not even ask us to do so. We thus DENY Castro’s petition for review. I. Castro is a Salvadoran national who entered the United States without inspection in 2007, at the age of eighteen. In 2010, he was arrested by Ohio police in connection with a vehicle accident, and following his incarceration, he was turned over to the Department of Homeland Case No. 19-3654, Castro v. Barr Security (DHS), which initiated removal proceedings. In the proceedings before the immigration judge, Castro conceded that he was inadmissible as charged. He sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge denied Castro’s application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Castro asked for and was granted the privilege of voluntary departure. Castro did not depart as agreed. Instead, in 2018, he filed a motion with the Board to reconsider its previous removal order, and he sought cancellation of removal, a form of discretionary relief that the Attorney General may grant to noncitizens to allow them to remain in the United States if they meet certain eligibility requirements under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). One of those requirements is that the alien “has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of such application.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A). There is no dispute that, at the time Castro filed his motion for reconsideration and for cancellation of removal, he had been physically present in the United States since 2007. However, under the “stop-time” rule established by Congress, the accrual period of continuous physical presence is “deemed to end . . . when the alien is served a notice to appear under section 1229(a).” Id. § 1229b(d)(1). A “Notice to Appear,” as defined and referred to in § 1229(a)(1), specifies that the noncitizen must be provided with written notice of several different categories of information, described in subsections (A)-(G) of that statutory provision. One of those categories is “[t]he time and place at which the [removal] proceedings will be held.” ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals