NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 19 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BORIS SWEREW, No. 20-70717 Petitioner, Agency No. A007-406-316 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 8, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: GRABER and LEE, Circuit Judges, and VRATIL,*** District Judge. Petitioner Boris Swerew seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which affirmed the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Kathryn H. Vratil, United States District Judge for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. decision that he was removable and ineligible for withholding of removal or deferral under regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(c)(1). We deny the petition. 1. The BIA correctly determined that Petitioner is not a national of the United States and did not err in failing to terminate deportation proceedings on that ground. We review de novo any issues of law arising from a claim of nationality. Hughes v. Ashcroft, 255 F.3d 752, 755 (9th Cir. 2001); Reyes-Alcaraz v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 937, 939 (9th Cir. 2004). As defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3), an “alien” is “any person not a citizen or national of the United States.” The term “national of the United States” means (1) “a citizen of the United States or” (2) “a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22). Even if Petitioner had connections sufficient to establish nationality under international principles and findings of the International Court of Justice, his claim for nationality must fail under the law of the United States. We have held that, under 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a), birth and naturalization are the “only ways in which a person can attain the status of a national.” Perdomo-Padilla v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 964, 970 (9th Cir. 2003). Further, under 8 U.S.C. § 1408, four categories of persons are classified as nationals but not citizens, and all such categories relate to birth in an outlying possession of the United States. The nationality statute does not specifically 2 address stateless children or children who are born in territories that the United States later acquires. See 8 U.S.C. § 1408. Under traditional principles of statutory interpretation, the fact that § 1408 defines explicit categories of persons as nationals creates a presumption that all other categories should be understood as exclusions. Perdomo-Padilla, 333 F.3d at 969–70 (citing Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 756–57 (9th Cir. 1991)). Even if Petitioner is similarly situated to children in acquired territories, the statute includes only the categories of persons specifically referenced, not …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals