RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 19a0255p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT GILBERTO GARCIA-ROMO, ┐ Petitioner, │ │ > No. 18-3857 v. │ │ │ WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, │ Respondent. │ ┘ On Petition for Review from the Board of Immigration Appeals; No. A 205 151 390. Argued: August 7, 2019 Decided and Filed: October 4, 2019 Before: ROGERS, BUSH, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges. _________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Alexander H. Park, LEWIS, THOMASON, KING, KRIEG & WALDROP, P.C., Memphis, Tennessee, for Petitioner. Michelle R. Slack, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. ON BRIEF: Alexander H. Park, Rehim Babaoglu, LEWIS, THOMASON, KING, KRIEG & WALDROP, P.C., Memphis, Tennessee, for Petitioner. Brooke M. Maurer, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. _________________ OPINION _________________ JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. This case presents the following central question: may “a notice to appear” for a removal proceeding under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229(a), 1229b(d)(1) be served No. 18-3857 Garcia-Romo v. Barr Page 2 upon a noncitizen1 through service of more than one written communication and still constitute such “notice” if those multiple installments collectively give the noncitizen all of the information required to be provided by § 1229(a)(1)(A)-(G)? Petitioner, Gilberto Garcia-Romo, a noncitizen, says no. He argues that “a notice to appear” means that all of the information required by § 1229(a)(1)(A)-(G) must be provided in a single document served upon him in order for such “notice” to be effectuated. As discussed below, we disagree, and for that principal reason we deny Garcia-Romo’s petition for review of a final order of his removal from this country as affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA” or “Board”). Before addressing the “notice to appear” issue, however, we should explain how this issue arises here. Garcia-Romo filed an application with the Immigration Court to cancel his removal order, seeking 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.” Id. § 1229b(b)(1)(A). Under the “stop- time” rule set forth in § 1229b(d)(1), the accrual period of continuous physical presence is “deemed to end . . . when the alien is served a notice to appear under section 1229(a).” A “notice to appear,” as defined and referred to in § 1229(a)(1), specifies that the noncitizen 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.” Id. § 1229(a)(1)(G). Garcia-Romo received a document entitled “Notice to Appear” from the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) that contained all of the required information ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals