17-379 Persaud 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 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 16th day of March, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges, VALERIE E. CAPRONI, District Judge. BHISHAM PERSAUD, AKA BHISAHM PERSAUD, Petitioner, 17-379 v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. FOR PETITIONER: Thomas V. Massucci, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Reader, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Katherine A. Clark, Senior Litigation Counsel; Nancy Kwang Canter, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Judge Valerie E. Caproni, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. 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 Bhisham Persaud seeks review of a January 13, 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a September 30, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordering his removal to Guyana. In re Bhisham Persaud, No. A041 926 549 (B.I.A. Jan. 13, 2017), aff’g No. A041 926 549 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 30, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. We retain jurisdiction to review Persaud’s citizenship claim despite his aggravated felony conviction underlying his removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D); Gil v. Sessions, 851 F.3d 184, 186 & n.1 (2d Cir. 2017). We review the question of derivative citizenship de novo. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5)(A); Gil, 851 F.3d at 186. Persaud’s claim to derivative citizenship is governed by the provision in effect at the time he turned eighteen. See Ashton v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2005). This provision, former 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a), provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] child born outside of the United States of alien parents . . . becomes a citizen of the United States upon . . . [t]he naturalization of both parents; . . . while such child is under the age of eighteen years; . . . and [s]uch child is residing in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals