Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-15-05146/USCOURTS-caDC-15-05146-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 460
Nature of Suit: Deportation
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 15-5146 September Term, 2016

 FILED ON: OCTOBER 25, 2016

TIMOTHY DUGDALE, PH.D.,

APPELLANT

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH AND UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION,

APPELLEES

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 1:14-cv-01175)

Before: ROGERS, Circuit Judge, and WILLIAMS and RANDOLPH, Senior Circuit

Judges.

J U D G M E N T

This appealwas considered on the record fromtheUnited StatesDistrictCourtfor

the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2); D.C. CIR. R. 34(j). The Court has accorded the issues full consideration and

has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C.CIR.R.36(d). For

the reasons stated below, it is

ORDEREDandADJUDGEDthatthe judgment ofthe district court be affirmed.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection entered an order of expedited removal

against Timothy Dugdale in January 2012, after determining that he had “willfully

misrepresent[ed]” his business activities in order to gain admission to the United States

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i). Dugdale v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot.,

88 F. Supp. 3d 1, 3 (D.D.C. 2015). The expedited removal order barred Dugdale from

reentering the United States for five years. Id. Dugdale challenged the expedited

USCA Case #15-5146 Document #1642716 Filed: 10/25/2016 Page 1 of 2
-2-

removal order in a habeas petition. Judicial review of the expedited removal order is

limited to the grounds permitted by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2). Dugdale also challenged the

constitutionality of the expedited removalsystem and requested a declaratory judgment

of U.S. citizenship.

The challenges to the expedited removal order are moot. The U.S. Customs and

Border Protection vacated the expedited removal order on April 8, 2015. On July 28,

2016, theBoard ofImmigration Appeals waived Dugdale’sinadmissability based on his

willful misrepresentation of his business pursuits. It also confirmed that vacating the

expedited removal order lifted the accompanying five-year ban on Dugdale entering the

United States. Therefore, the Board granted Dugdale advance permission to enter the

United States as a nonimmigrant.

To the extent that Dugdale brought and preserved a separate claim for a

declaration of citizenship, it is denied. Dugdale has notstated a claimof U.S. citizenship

under the law in effect at the time of the relevant events. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S.

308, 312 (1961). Dugdale was not “born . . . of . . . a citizen of the United States,” he

was adopted by one. 8 U.S.C. § 1401 (1964). See, e.g., Matter of Rodriguez-Tejedor,

23 I. & N. Dec. 153, 155 (BIA 2001). Dugdale does not allege that before he turned 18

a naturalization petition wasfiled on his behalf or that he lived in the United Statesin his

mother’s custody as a lawful permanentresident. 8 U.S.C. § 1433(b) (1982). Therefore,

Dugdale has not stated a claim to citizenship. This Court also does not have the power

to naturalize him as a citizen. 8 U.S.C. § 1421; I.N.S. v. Pangilinan, 486 U.S. 875, 884-

85 (1988). We have considered and rejected Dugdale’s other arguments.

Pursuant toD.C.CircuitRule 36, this dispositionwill not be published. TheClerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. See FED.R.APP.P.41(b); D.C.

CIR. R. 41(a).

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

Ken Meadows

Deputy Clerk

USCA Case #15-5146 Document #1642716 Filed: 10/25/2016 Page 2 of 2