19-1646-ag Antonio Sebastian McPherson v. Merrick B. Garland UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 23rd day of June, two thousand twenty one. Present: GUIDO CALABRESI, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________________________ ANTONIO SEBASTIAN MCPHERSON, AKA ANTONIO MCPEARSON, AKA ANTONIO S. MCPHERSON, AKA ANTONIO S. BESWICK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. 19-1646-ag MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent-Appellee.1 _____________________________________________________ Appearing for Appellant: Afshan J. Khan, The Law Office of Delmas A. Costin, Jr., Bronx, N.Y. Appearing for Appellee: Arthur L. Rabin, Trial Attorney (Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, on the brief), for Merrick B. Garland, United 1 The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as above. States Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review be and it hereby is DENIED, the BIA’s decision is AFFIRMED, and the stay is VACATED. Antonio Sebastian McPherson, a native and citizen of Jamaica, seeks review of a May 9, 2019, decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming a July 6, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) rejecting McPherson’s claim of derivative citizenship and denying his application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. McPherson asserts that he derived U.S. citizenship from his adoptive mother who naturalized in 1989, before he came to the United States, and that the relevant derivative citizenship statute violates the Equal Protection Clause. We review these claims de novo. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D), (b)(5)(A); Gil v. Sessions, 851 F.3d 184, 186 n.1 (2d Cir. 2017). In determining whether an individual has derived citizenship, the applicable law is the law that was in effect at the time the last requirement for derivative citizenship is purportedly fulfilled. Ashton v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2005). The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), as it was in effect at that time, provided, in relevant part, that “[a] child born outside of the United States of alien parents . . . becomes a citizen of the United States” if, by the time he turns eighteen, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals