NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 18-2207 ___________ CONROY KIM CLAYTON, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A043-976-512) Immigration Judge: Honorable Walter A. Durling ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) October 26, 2018 Before: KRAUSE, SCIRICA, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed October 26, 2018) ___________ OPINION* ___________ PER CURIAM Conroy Kim Clayton petitions this Court for review of a final removal order entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which affirmed a decision by the * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Immigration Judge (“IJ”) to reject Clayton’s claim that he has derivative United States citizenship through his father. We too must reject Clayton’s claim to derivative citizenship, and we will deny his petition for review. Clayton, a native and citizen of Jamaica, was admitted to the United States (“U.S.”) as a lawful permanent resident on May 27, 1993. He was convicted on July 29, 2011, of conspiracy to commit robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Clayton was sentenced to a total of 108 months imprisonment. In a Notice to Appear issued on April 7, 2015, the Department of Homeland Security charged Clayton with being removable as having been convicted of an aggravated felony as defined by INA § 101(a)(43)(F), crime of violence; § 101(a)(43)(G), a theft or burglary offence; and § 101(a)(43)(U), relating to attempt or conspiracy. He was also charged as removable under § 237(a)(2)(C), as an alien convicted under any law of purchasing, selling, offering for sale, exchanging, using, owning, possessing, or carrying any weapon or accessory which is a firearm or destructive device as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a). At his master calendar hearing on August 8, 2017, the IJ sustained all charges except for the aggravated felony as defined in § 101(a)(43)(F) (crime of violence). Clayton testified at the hearing that he believed he was not removable because he had derived U.S. citizenship from his citizen father under former INA § 321, 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a), which confers citizenship to children born outside of the U.S. when one or more 2 parent naturalizes and certain other statutory conditions are met. See 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a); Morgan v. Att’y Gen., 432 F.3d 226, 230 n.1 (3d Cir. 2005). However, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had issued a Notice of Denial on April 9, 2014, finding that Clayton failed to meet his burden of proof on the derivative citizenship claim. His appeal to the Administrative Appeals Office was dismissed on October 27, 2014. Given this adverse determination, Clayton asked the immigration court to make its own finding regarding his citizenship claim. In an Interim Ruling issued on September 19, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals