18-1048-cv Lainez v. McHenry 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 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 16th day of June, two thousand twenty. Present: RALPH K. WINTER, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, MICHAEL H. PARK, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________________________ ROGER LAINEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 18-1048-cv JAMES McHENRY, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, L. FRANCIS CISSNA, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, THOMAS CIOPPA, New York City Field District Director U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Defendants-Appellees. _____________________________________________________ Appearing for Appellant: Malik Havalic (Vilia B. Hayes, Dustin P. Smith, on the brief), Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, New York, N.Y. Appearing for Appellees: Christopher Connolly, Assistant United States Attorney (Joseph N. Cordaro, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Geoffrey S. Berman, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, N.Y. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Pitman, M.J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Appellant Roger A. Lainez appeals from the March 9, 2018 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Pitman, M.J.) dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review. The district court here found it lacked jurisdiction to review the removal order and the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination that Lainez was not a U.S. citizen. The district court reasoned that while Lainez claimed citizenship as a defense during his removal hearing, he failed to appeal the denial of his claim to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The district court deemed Lainez’s failure to exhaust fatal to his citizenship claim. Even if Lainez did exhaust his claim, the district court held, Lainez could appeal the BIA’s determination only through a petition for review in this Court, not in a proceeding before the district court. The district court therefore held that it lacked jurisdiction to review Lainez’s claim of citizenship. On appeal, Lainez argues he was not required to exhaust his citizenship claim. He urges this Court to treat this proceeding as a petition for review of a final order of removal and find that his claims ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals