17-1813 Falodun 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 TO 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 5th day of May, two thousand twenty. Present: PIERRE N. LEVAL, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ BRIGHT IDADA FALODUN , Petitioner, v. 17-1813 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ For Petitioner: MARK I. SALVACION , PRIME Ecumenical Commitment to Refugees, Lansdowne, PA For Respondent: RUSSELL J.E. VERBY , Senior Litigation Counsel (Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, and Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, on the brief), Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a decision of the Board of 1 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Bright Idada Falodun seeks review of a June 2, 2017 BIA decision, which dismissed his appeal of a decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) that denied Falodun’s motion to terminate removal proceedings as a U.S. citizen and ordered removal to Nigeria. Matter of Falodun, 27 I. & N. Dec. 52 (BIA 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. Where, as here, “the petitioner claims to be a national of the United States,” we review “the pleadings and affidavits” to determine if a “genuine issue of material fact about the petitioner’s nationality is presented.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5)(A). If no genuine issue of material fact is presented, we “decide the nationality claim.” Id. If, however, such an issue exists, we “transfer the proceeding to the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which the petitioner resides for a new hearing on the nationality claim and a decision on that claim.” Id. § 1252(b)(5)(B). To evaluate whether a genuine issue of material fact is presented, we apply the same principles employed when reviewing a grant of summary judgment. See Agosto v. INS, 436 U.S. 748, 754 (1978). Citizenship is derived automatically when all the conditions for derivative citizenship are met. See Langhorne v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 175, 177–78 & n.2 (2d Cir. 2004) (discussing former derivative citizenship provision at 8 U.S.C. § 1432, repealed by Children Citizenship Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-395, 114 Stat. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals