Eric H. H older, Jr., is automatically substitut ed as theresponde nt in this casepursuant 1 to Fede ral Rule of A

ppellate Proc edure43(c) (2). 08-4 862 -ag Poole v . H older U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT SUM M AR

Y O RD ER
R U L I N G S B Y S U M M A R Y OR D E R D O N OT HA V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I ON T O A SUM M A R Y O R D ER FI LED O N O R AFTER JAN U A R Y 1, 20 07 , I S PER M I TTED A N D I S GO V ERN ED B Y T H IS C O U R T ’S L O C A L R U L E 3 2 .1 .1 A N D F E D E R A L R U L E O F A P P E L L A T E P R O C E D U R E 3 2 .1 . W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S C O U R T, A PA R TY M U S T C I T E E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR A N E L E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE NO TATI O N “ S UM M ARY O RDER”) . A PARTY CI TI NG A S UM M ARY O RDER M US T S ERVE A CO PY O F I T O N AN Y PAR TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL. At a stated Te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 29 day

of January , two thousand and ten. th Pr e se nt: RA LPH K . WI NT ER, J OHN M. WALKER, J R., RO SEM AR

Y S. POO L ER, Cir c uit Judg e s.

_____________________________________________________ RODWEL LARL I E ANTHONY POOLE, Petitioner,

-v - (0 8 -4 8 6 2 -a g) E R IC H
. H O LD E R , J R
. , A T T O R N E YG EN E RA L, 1
Re sp on de nt. Appea ringfor Petitioner: J ennife r Oltarsh, O ltarsh & Associates, P.C., New Y ork, NY Appea ringfor Responde nt: J em Sponzo, Office of Immigration L itigation, United States Depa rtme nt o f Jus tic e , Wa sh ington D. C. Petition for reviewof an order of the B oard of

Immigration Appeals (“ BIA”)

.The g overnme nt has prese nted a naturalization application that purports to establish that 2 pe tit ion e r’ s mo the r a

pp lie d f or natur a lizatio n a ft e r p e tit ion e r’ s e ighte e nth bir thd ay , ma kin ghim ineligible f

or derivative citizenship even we re theBI A to possess nunc pro tunc power to gr ant it. As the natura liz ation application is not in the administrative rec ord, wedo not consider it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)( A) (“ [T] he cour t of appe als shall decidethe petition only on the administrative re cord on which the orde r of r emoval is based.” ). 2 ON CONSIDERATION WHE REOF, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUD GED, AN D D EC RE ED that th e pe tit ion fo r r e vie w i s DE NI ED
. Petitioner Rodwell Poole (“petitioner”or “Poole” ) files this petition for re view of a September 16, 2008 de cision and orde r of the B oard of Immigration Appeals (“ BIA”) that dismiss ed his claim of de rivative United States c itiz enship. The B IA issued its decision and order on rema nd from the Sec ond Circuit, which pre viously found Poole’s petition for re view t i m e - b ar r e d e x c e p tw i thr e s p e c tt o h i s c l a i mo f d e r i v at i v e c i t i z e n s h i p . S e e P o o l e v . M uk a s e y, 522 F.3d 259 ( 2d Cir. 2008). Petitioner argues that the B IA incorr ectly held that it does not have thepower to gr ant derivative citizenship nunc pro tunc. Even a ssuming arguendo that the B IA does have this power, howeve r, petitioner ha s prese nted no evidenc e that the de lay in proce ssing his mother’ s natura liz ation application wa s “untoward” or that his mother took a ny action to expedite the application in light of

petitioner’s a g e. See a lso Calix -Chavar ria v. Att’y

Gene ral, 182 F ed. Appx. 72, 76 (3d Ci r. 2006) ( noting c ircumstance s in which it might be a ppropriateto gr ant derivative citizenship nunc pro tunc). We theref ore D ENY the pe tition for review . The 2 previously

grante d stay

of depor tation is VACATED.

FOR THECOURT: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk