18-2095 Lemonious v. Barr BIA Straus, IJ A045 439 025 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 March, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges, JENNIFER CHOE-GROVES, Judge.* _____________________________________ ANDRE NORBERT LEMONIOUS, Petitioner, v. 18-2095 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: RENEE C. REDMAN, Law Office of Renee C. Redman, New Haven, CT. * Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves, of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. FOR RESPONDENT: VIRGINIA L. GORDON, Trial Attorney (Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Margot L. Carter, Senior Litigation Counsel, on the brief), Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Andre Norbert Lemonious seeks review of a July 10, 2018 decision of the BIA affirming a January 18, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying his motion to terminate his removal proceedings on the ground that he derived U.S. citizenship from his mother. In re Andre Norbert Lemonious, No. A045 439 025 (B.I.A. July 10, 2018), aff’g No. A045 439 025 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Jan. 18, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. A. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). This Court has jurisdiction to consider questions of law related to U.S. citizenship. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D); Ashton v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2005) (“If [petitioner] is a United States citizen, then § 1252(a)(2)(C) cannot bar his petition.”). We consider such questions de novo. Nwozuzu v. Holder, 726 F.3d 323, 326 (2d Cir. 2013). 2 B. Physical Custody Lemonious’s citizenship claim is governed by the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 (“CCA”), which provides: A child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a citizen of the United States when all of the following conditions have been fulfilled: (1) At least one parent of the child is a ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals