Raul Garcia-Marin v. Merrick B. Garland, No. 20-3393 (7th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on July 29, 2022.
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Submitted August 18, 2023 Decided February 28, 2024 Before DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge No. 20-3393 RAUL GARCIA MARIN, Petitioner, v. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. No. A075-818-976 MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. ORDER The Supreme Court returned this case to us for further consideration in light of the Solicitor General’s change of position on the question of mootness. The government filed a Circuit Rule 54 statement and an unopposed motion to remand the case to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Without conceding error, the government now takes the position that further proceedings before the Board are warranted. In his Circuit Rule 54 No. 20-3393 Page 2 statement, petitioner Raul Garcia Marin confirmed that he agrees with the motion to remand to the Board. We held the matter based on a jurisdictional concern about the timeliness of Garcia Marin’s petition for review. The same jurisdictional issue was then pending before other panels of this court; a decision in any of those cases might have affected our jurisdiction here. The issue is now resolved. See F.J.A.P. v. Garland, No. 21-2284, 2024 WL 804140, at *13 (7th Cir. Feb. 27, 2024) (holding that a reinstated order of removal is not final for purposes of judicial review until the immigration agency has completed withholding proceedings). Our jurisdiction is secure. We therefore grant the unopposed motion and remand this case to the Board of Immigration Appeals for further proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
