M-A-C-O, 27 I. & N. Dec. 477

Respondent, a native of El Salvador, entered the U.S. on or about Jan. 1, 2015 at age 17 and was designated an unaccompanied alien child (UAC) by DHS.
He was served a notice to appear and was placed on the UAC docket, but turned 18 on March 21, 2015 and his case was moved to the adult docket.
Counsel had filed an I-589 with USCIS because the respondent had been a UAC; anticipating jurisdictional issues, counsel also filed a second I-589 in Immigration Court, which the respondent signed and testified to on Sept. 29, 2017.
The Immigration Judge held that because the respondent was 18 when he filed, USCIS did not have exclusive initial jurisdiction and the IJ retained initial jurisdiction; the IJ denied asylum and withholding and ordered removal.
On appeal the sole issue was jurisdiction: whether USCIS retains exclusive initial jurisdiction over asylum applications of aliens who were previously determined to be UACs but who turned 18 before filing.

Issue	Respondent's Argument	Government/Board Argument	Held
Who has initial jurisdiction over an asylum application filed by an alien previously determined to be a UAC but who turned 18 before filing?	USCIS must have initial jurisdiction because the respondent had been designated a UAC on apprehension and agency policy (Kim memo) treats that designation as continuing unless affirmatively revoked.	The statutory UAC definition requires the applicant to be under 18 at the time of filing; an IJ may determine jurisdiction and UAC status is not binding on the court.	IJ properly exercised initial jurisdiction because respondent was 18 when he filed; §1158(b)(3)(C) does not apply to those who are no longer UACs at filing.

Harmon v. Holder, 758 F.3d 728 (6th Cir. 2014) (statutory language requires filing while applicant is a UAC)
Mazariegos-Diaz v. Lynch, [citation="605 F. App'x 675"] (9th Cir. 2015) (same interpretation that UAC-based USCIS jurisdiction requires UAC status at filing)