17-2565 Spaulding v. Sessions BIA Straus, IJ A041 353 795 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 5th day of October, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges, GEOFFREY W. CRAWFORD,* District Judge. _____________________________________ MARLON DONOVAN SPAULDING, Petitioner, v. 17-2565 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Justin Conlon, Hartford, CT. * Chief Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford, of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation. FOR RESPONDENT: Marina C. Stevenson, Trial Attorney (Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Douglas E. Ginsburg, Assistant Director; Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, on the brief), Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Marlon Donovan Spaulding (“Marlon”1) seeks review of a July 27, 2017, decision of the BIA affirming the September 28, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Marlon’s motion to terminate removal proceedings. The IJ ruled that Marlon had not derived U.S. citizenship from his mother under former Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 321(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a). In re Marlon Donovan Spaulding, No. A041 353 795 (B.I.A. July 27, 2017), aff’g No. A041 353 795 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Sept. 28, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. Under the circumstances of this case, we have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 1 We refer to petitioner by his first name, Marlon, to avoid confusion with his brother, who has the same last name. 2 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). Although our jurisdiction is limited because Marlon was ordered removed for an aggravated felony offense, we retain jurisdiction to review a claim of citizenship. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D); see also Duarte-Ceri v. Holder, 630 F.3d 83, 87 (2d Cir. 2010); Ashton v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2005) (“If [petitioner] is a United States citizen, then § 1252(a)(2)(C) cannot bar his petition.”). We consider such claims ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals