18-3028 Allen v. Barr 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 3rd day of January, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges, CHRISTINA REISS, District Judge.* ROGER GAIRY CHRISTOPHER ALLEN, AKA ROGER ALLEYNE, AKA RONALD ALLEN, AKA RAYAN KOWLESSEAR, AKA RONALD WALTERS, AKA ROGER GAIRY ALLEN, Petitioner, 18-3028 v. WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. * Judge Christina Reiss, of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation. 1 FOR PETITIONER: TIMOTHY W. HOOVER, Hodgson Russ LLP, Buffalo, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: JOHN F. STANTON (Joseph H. Hunt and Keith McManus, on the brief), Trial Attorney, for William P. Barr, United States Attorney General, Washington, D.C. Appeal from a September 19, 2018 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review be GRANTED, the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals be VACATED, and removal proceedings against petitioner be TERMINATED. Petitioner Roger Allen (“Allen”) challenges the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance of removal proceedings against him, initiated by order of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). Specifically, Allen argues that such proceedings should be halted because he is a United States citizen. He argues that the BIA wrongly concluded he was not a citizen because they erred in finding that his mother—a non-citizen who divorced his father in 1976—had legal custody of him in 1983, when Allen’s father naturalized. He contends that, in fact, his father had legal custody of him at that time and that, as a result, he derived United States citizenship from his father—as the Government has since concluded his sister did—under then-applicable immigration law. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. “We apply de novo review to questions of law raised in petitions for review of removal orders.” Phong Thanh Nguyen v. Chertoff, 501 F.3d 107, 111 (2d Cir. 2007). “To determine whether an alien obtained derivative citizenship through a parent’s naturalization, we look to the law in effect when [petitioner] fulfilled the last requirement for derivative citizenship.” Gil v. Sessions, 851 F.3d 184, 186 (2d Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals