Johanns Cuadros Almanza v. Attorney General United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 17-1854 _____________ JOHANNS CUADROS ALMANZA, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent _____________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA No. A043-119-288) Immigration Judge: Honorable Earle B. Wilson _____________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) November 15, 2017 Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: January 10, 2018) _____________ OPINION _____________  This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. FUENTES, Circuit Judge. Johanns Cuadros Almanza challenges the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (the “Board”) dismissal of his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s decision: (1) that he did not derive United States citizenship from his father’s naturalization, (2) that he was removable, and (3) that he was not eligible for cancellation of removal. For the following reasons, we will deny the petition with respect to Almanza’s derivative citizenship claim and dismiss the remainder of the petition for lack of jurisdiction. I. Because the facts are well-known to the parties, we discuss only those facts necessary to our disposition. Almanza, a native and citizen of Peru, has lived in the United States as a lawful permanent resident since 1991. In 1999, Almanza was convicted on two counts of criminal sexual contact in violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:14-3b. In his guilty plea colloquy, Almanza specifically pled guilty to subpart (4) of N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:14-2c which, in relevant part, criminalizes sexual contact where “[t]he victim is at least 13 but less than 16 years old and the actor is at least four years older than the victim.” Almanza was sentenced to 364 days’ imprisonment, five years’ probation, registration as a sex offender, counseling, and no contact with the victim. In 2016, the Department of Homeland Security commenced removal proceedings against Almanza on three grounds: (1) as a lawful permanent resident convicted of an aggravated felony—specifically, sexual abuse of a minor; (2) as a lawful permanent resident convicted of a crime of violence, stalking, or child abuse, child neglect or child 2 abandonment; and (3) as a lawful permanent resident convicted of two crimes of moral turpitude. Almanza offered two arguments in the proceedings before the Immigration Judge. First, Almanza maintained that he derived United States citizenship from his father’s naturalization. Second, Almanza argued that his convictions did not render him removable. The Immigration Judge ruled against Almanza on each issue. Moreover, because the Immigration Judge found that he was convicted of an aggravated felony, Almanza could not apply for cancellation of removal. Almanza appealed to the Board, which rejected his arguments and dismissed the appeal. Almanza filed a timely petition for review.1 II. Almanza makes two arguments on appeal. First, Almanza contends that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 137 S. Ct. 1678 (2017), renders former 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a)—which precludes his derivative citizenship claim— unconstitutional. Second, Almanza asserts that the ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals