Luis Cuellar Garcia v. William P. Barr, 960 F.3d 893

Luis Eduardo Cuellar Garcia entered the U.S. without inspection eight days before his 18th birthday and was designated an "unaccompanied alien child" (UAC).
Over a year later (age 19) he filed for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, submitting the asylum application to USCIS based on his UAC designation.
An immigration judge (IJ) assumed jurisdiction, reasoning the asylum statute vests initial jurisdiction in USCIS only when the applicant is a UAC at the time of filing; the IJ later denied relief on the merits.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s denial, remanded on a continuance question (which the IJ and BIA denied), and Garcia was removed before this court could stay removal.
Garcia petitioned for review raising (1) IJ jurisdiction, (2) application of the correct CAT legal standard, and (3) denial of a continuance; the Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether IJ lacked jurisdiction because USCIS must have initial jurisdiction over asylum applications by UACs	Garcia: USCIS policy and his prior UAC finding mean USCIS—not the IJ—had initial jurisdiction, even though he was 19 when he filed	Government: 8 U.S.C. §1158(b)(3)(C) grants USCIS initial jurisdiction only when the applicant is a UAC at time of filing; IJ may determine jurisdiction	Court: IJ correctly exercised jurisdiction—statute requires UAC status at time of filing; prior UAC finding or agency policy cannot override plain statutory text
Whether IJ applied correct CAT standard (whether government acquiescence/willful blindness suffices)	Garcia: IJ failed to apply the Sixth Circuit’s "willful blindness" standard for government acquiescence to private-party torture	Government: IJ applied correct legal standards	Court: IJ applied the correct standard; record shows the IJ considered willful blindness and accurately stated that more than mere inability to control is required
Whether denial of continuance (to pursue adjustment of status) was reversible error	Garcia: Denial prejudiced his pending adjustment/SIJ-based relief	Government: Denial was within IJ discretion	Court: Claim is moot because Garcia has been removed and no relief on a continuance is possible; petition dismissed as to this claim

Harmon v. Holder, 758 F.3d 728 (6th Cir. 2014) (statute read to reserve USCIS initial jurisdiction only when applicant is a UAC at time of filing)
Amir v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 921 (6th Cir. 2006) (willful blindness by public officials can establish government acquiescence for CAT)
Singh v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 396 (6th Cir. 2005) (private-party torture can qualify as torture when there is consent or acquiescence by public officials)
Ali v. Reno, 237 F.3d 591 (6th Cir. 2001) (elements for CAT claim require showing likelihood of torture if returned)
Zaldana Menijar v. Lynch, 812 F.3d 491 (6th Cir. 2015) (distinguishing inability to control from acquiescence in CAT analysis)
Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21 (1982) (immigration courts have authority to determine their own jurisdictional scope)
Arangure v. Whitaker, 911 F.3d 333 (6th Cir. 2018) (agency cannot rewrite unambiguous statutory terms)
Salmeron-Salmeron v. Spivey, 926 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2019) (USCIS policy cannot conflict with clear jurisdictional statute)
J.O.P. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 409 F. Supp. 3d 367 (D. Md. 2019) (preliminary injunction against USCIS’s 2019 redetermination memorandum and recognition of reliance interests)