17-2031 Cartagena v. Barr BIA A030 958 643 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. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 15th day of November, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 REENA RAGGI, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 JUAN ANTONIO CARTAGENA, AKA JAY 14 GONZALES, AKA STEVEN GONZALEZ, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 17-2031 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: E. Abel Arcia, Jackson Heights, 25 NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Jessica A. 29 Dawgert, Senior Litigation 30 Counsel; Sara J. Bayram, Trial 31 Attorney, Office of Immigration 32 Litigation, United States 33 Department of Justice, Washington, 34 DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Juan Antonio Cartagena, a native and citizen 6 of the Dominican Republic, seeks review of a BIA decision 7 denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. See 8 In re Juan Antonio Cartagena, No. A 030 958 643 (B.I.A. June 9 6, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 10 underlying facts and procedural history in this case, which 11 we reference only as relevant to Cartagena’s derivative 12 citizenship claim. 13 Cartagena was born in the Dominican Republic in 1968 to 14 unmarried Dominican citizens. His father relocated to the 15 United States and, in 1973, Cartagena entered this country as 16 a lawful permanent resident. Cartagena’s father, his 17 custodial parent at that time, naturalized as a U.S. citizen 18 in 1979. His mother naturalized in 1996, well after 19 Cartagena turned 18. 20 We have jurisdiction to review Cartagena’s derivative 21 citizenship claim notwithstanding that we generally lack 22 jurisdiction to review orders of removal based on felony 23 convictions, or the BIA’s discretionary decision to decline 2 1 sua sponte reopening. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D); Gil 2 v. Sessions, 851 F.3d 184, 186 n.1 (2d Cir. 2017); Ali v. 3 Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 518 (2d Cir. 2006). “We review the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals