Gilberto Garcia-Romo v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 21a0294n.06
Case No. 18-3857
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
GILBERTO GARCIA-ROMO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW
FROM THE UNITED STATES
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION
APPEALS
OPINION
BEFORE: ROGERS, BUSH, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.
JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. 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

-- 1 of 2 --

Case No. 18-3857, Garcia-Romo v. Garland
- 2 -
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. 141 S. Ct. 1474, 1486
(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, 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.

-- 2 of 2 --