17-26 Campbell v. Sessions BIA Connelly, IJ A047 113 663 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 21st day of September, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, JOHN M. WALKER, JR., CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ DAMION ANTHONY CAMPBELL, AKA DAMIEN A. CAMPBELL, AKA DAMON CAMPBELL, Petitioner, v. 17-26 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Andrew Boccio, Henrik J. van Hemmen,on the brief; Jon Romberg, Of Counsel; Seton Hall University School of Law, Center for Social Justice, Newark, NJ. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director; Sheri R. Glaser, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5)(B) and the petition is HELD IN ABEYANCE. Petitioner Damion Anthony Campbell seeks review of a November 30, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a July 14, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordering his removal to Jamaica. In re Damion Anthony Campbell, No. A047 113 663 (B.I.A. Nov. 30, 2016), aff’g No. A047 113 663 (Immig. Ct. Batavia July 14, 2016). He argues that he derives citizenship from Jamal Robinson as his biological son, or as a result of his legitimation under Jamaican law. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. I. Statutory Framework We retain jurisdiction to review Campbell’s citizenship claim despite the convictions underlying his removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D); Gil v. Sessions, 851 F.3d 184, 186 & n.1 (2d Cir. 2017). We review the question of derivative citizenship de novo. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5)(A); Gil, 851 F.3d at 186. The INA governs judicial review of U.S. citizenship or nationality claims. It provides that a court of appeals “shall” decide a nationality claim if the court “finds from the pleadings and affidavits that no genuine issue of material fact about the petitioner’s nationality is presented.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5)(A). We must, however, transfer a petition to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals