Monssef Cheneau v. William Barr


FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MONSSEF CHENEAU, No. 15-70636 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A077-279-939 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. OPINION On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted July 6, 2020 Portland, Oregon Filed August 19, 2020 Before: Mark J. Bennett and Eric D. Miller, Circuit Judges, and Benita Y. Pearson, * District Judge. Per Curiam Opinion; Concurrence by Judge Bennett * The Honorable Benita Y. Pearson, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. 2 CHENEAU V. BARR SUMMARY ** Immigration Denying in part and granting in part Monssef Cheneau’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, and remanding, the panel concluded that Cheneau was not a derivative citizen of the United States, and that his burglary conviction, under California Penal Code § 459, was not a crime-of-violence aggravated felony that rendered him removable. As an initial matter, the panel considered which version of the derivative citizenship statute applied: former 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a), which was in effect until February 27, 2001, or the current statute at 8 U.S.C. § 1431(a). Observing that § 1432(a) governed if Cheneau became a citizen before February 27, 2001, the panel concluded that § 1432(a) did not apply because it was not in effect at the time of a critical event giving rise to Cheneau’s eligibility. Under § 1432(a)(5), a child can obtain derivative citizenship in two ways: first, if at the time his parent is naturalized, he “is residing in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence,” or second, if after his parent is naturalized and while under eighteen, he “begins to reside permanently in the United States.” Cheneau did not obtain lawful permanent resident status until August 2003, at age eighteen, about four years after his mother was naturalized and when § 1432(a) was no longer ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. CHENEAU V. BARR 3 in effect. Thus, the panel concluded that the first provision of § 1432(a)(5) did not apply. Considering the second provision of § 1432(a)(5), the panel rejected as foreclosed by Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2008), Cheneau’s argument that he began to “reside permanently in the United States” in January 2000, when he applied for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident. The panel explained that under Romero-Ruiz “lawful admission for permanent residence” is required by both provisions of clause (5). Thus, because the critical event of Cheneau obtaining lawful permanent resident status happened in 2003, more than two years after § 1432(a) was repealed, the panel concluded that § 1432(a) was not applicable, and that § 1431(a) applied. Under § 1431(a), a child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a citizen of the United States when all of the following conditions have ...

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