Morales-Santana v. Sessions

11‐1252‐ag Morales‐Santana v. Sessions 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 for the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 19th day of December, two thousand 4 seventeen. 5 6 PRESENT: RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 7 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 8 Circuit Judges, 9 JED S. RAKOFF, 10 District Judge.* 11 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 12 LUIS RAMON MORALES‐SANTANA, AKA 13 LUIS MORALES, 14 Petitioner, 15 v. No. 11‐1252‐ag 16 17 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES 18 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 19 Respondent.** 20 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ * Judge Jed S. Rakoff, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. ** Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Jefferson B. Sessions III is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch as Respondent. 1 FOR PETITIONER: Stephen A. Broome, Jacob Waldman, 2 Ellyde Roko, Quinn Emanuel 3 Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, 4 NY. 5 6 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart Delery, Acting Assistant 7 Attorney General, Stephen J. Flynn, 8 Assistant Director, Kathryn M. 9 McKinney, Imran R. Zaidi, 10 Attorneys, Office of Immigration 11 Litigation, U.S. Department of 12 Justice, Washington, DC. 13 14 On remand from the United States Supreme Court. 15 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 16 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 17 AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 18 Following our decision in Morales‐Santana v. Lynch, 804 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 19 2015), the Government appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The 20 Supreme Court affirmed this Court’s judgment in part and reversed in part, 21 remanding the case for further proceedings. Sessions v. Morales‐Santana, 137 S. 22 Ct. 1678 (2017). The Supreme Court held that while “[t]he gender‐based 23 distinction infecting §§ 1401(a)(7) and 1409(a) and (c) . . . violates the equal 24 protection principle,” extending favorable treatment would convert § 1409(c)’s 25 exception for unwed U.S.‐citizen mothers into the main rule displacing 2 1 §§ 1401(a)(7) and 1409(a). Id. at 1700–01. “Section 1401(a)(7)’s longer 2 physical‐presence requirement, applicable to a substantial majority of children 3 born abroad to one U.S.‐citizen parent and one foreign citizen parent, therefore, 4 must hold sway.” Id. at 1702. 5 In view of the Supreme Court’s decision, we ...

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