Garcia v. Sessions, 873 F.3d 553

Cirilo Garcia, a Honduran national, was subject to a reinstated removal order after a prior in absentia removal and returned to the U.S. in 2014 claiming persecution for political activism.
After apprehension, an asylum officer found Garcia had a reasonable fear of torture and referred him for withholding-only proceedings; Garcia nonetheless filed an asylum application in immigration court.
An Immigration Judge granted withholding of removal but said she lacked authority to revisit the reinstated removal order; the Board dismissed Garcia’s appeal, citing regulations and multiple courts holding reinstated-order aliens cannot seek asylum.
Garcia petitioned the Seventh Circuit to challenge the regulation barring asylum applications by aliens with reinstated removal orders, arguing §1158(a)(1) authorizes his asylum application.
The government initially argued Garcia lacked Article III standing under circuit precedent but later conceded standing; the court granted rehearing, overruled prior standing precedent, and reached the merits.
On the merits, the court held §1231(a)(5)’s prohibition on applying for “any relief under this chapter” plainly bars asylum applications by aliens subject to reinstated orders and denied Garcia’s petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge denial of right to apply for asylum	Garcia: denial of statutory right to apply is an Article III injury because it extinguishes any chance to obtain asylum	Government (initially): asylum is discretionary so denial to apply causes no cognizable Article III injury; later conceded standing	Court: Overruled prior Delgado-Arteaga holding; denial to apply is an injury-in-fact and Garcia has standing
Whether aliens with reinstated removal orders may apply for asylum	Garcia: §1158(a) allows any alien present to apply for asylum irrespective of status	Government: §1231(a)(5) specifically bars aliens subject to reinstated orders from applying for any relief under the chapter, including asylum	Court: §1231(a)(5) unambiguously bars asylum applications by aliens with reinstated removal orders; petition denied

Delgado-Arteaga v. Sessions, 856 F.3d 1109 (7th Cir.) (prior circuit holding that denial to apply for asylum did not give Article III standing; overruled)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Sup. Ct.) (articulates Article III standing requirements)
Herrera-Molina v. Holder, 597 F.3d 128 (2d Cir.) (concluding reinstatement bar precludes asylum)
Mejia v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 573 (4th Cir.) (reading §1231(a)(5) to bar asylum applications)
Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485 (5th Cir.) (concluding reinstatement bar denies all forms of redress, including asylum)
Jimenez-Morales v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 821 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir.) (holding asylum is relief from removal and barred by reinstatement provision)
Cazun v. Att’y Gen., 856 F.3d 249 (3d Cir.) (upholding agency interpretation that reinstatement bar precludes asylum)
Perez-Guzman v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir.) (deferring to agency under Chevron to sustain regulation barring asylum)