2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-17-2011

Alberto Brens v. Atty Gen USA

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-1655

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Alberto Brens v. Atty Gen USA" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 667.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/667
1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-1655

___________

ALBERTO BRENS, 

a/k/a Alberto Castillo,

Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

 Respondent

____________________________________

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(Agency No. A040-524-364)

Immigration Judge: Honorable Jesus Clemente

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

August 1, 2011

Before: RENDELL, CHAGARES and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: August 17, 2011)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM
2

Petitioner Alberto Brens, a native of the Dominican Republic, seeks review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order of removal. For the following 

reasons, we will deny the petition for review.

I.

Brens entered the United States in 1986 as a legal permanent resident, and filed an 

application for naturalization on February 22, 2002. He appeared for his naturalization 

interview and asserts that he successfully completed the citizenship exam and took a 

loyalty oath on May 21, 2004. Brens claims that during his interview, he was taken into 

custody by federal agents and thereafter charged with several drug and firearms offenses. 

The Notice of Decision as to Brens’s naturalization application indicates that his 

application was denied on May 21, 2004, finding that he was ineligible for citizenship 

because he had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and because his 

probation was not yet complete.1 Then, in 2008, he was convicted in the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of New York of, among other things, being a felon 

in possession of a firearm and conspiracy to import five kilograms or more of cocaine. 

He was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment. 

 

1

The record indicates that Brens had been convicted of several offenses in New 

Jersey state court, including “using a false identification,” before he filed his 

naturalization application. We note that Brens appears to mistakenly believe that he was 

eligible for naturalization because these offenses did not constitute aggravated felonies. 

See 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a)(3); 8 C.F.R. § 316.10 (b)(2).
3

In March 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) issued a notice to 

appear that charged Brens as removable under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), (B)(i), (C). 

Although Brens did not dispute that he had been convicted of aggravated felonies, a 

controlled substances offense, and a firearm offense, he asserted that he was not 

removable because he was a national of the United States. He claimed that he had never 

received the Notice of Decision denying his naturalization application. After he was 

shown the Notice of Decision, he asserted that he had received a “pardon” from a DHS 

officer. 

The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found Brens removable as charged and determined 

that he is not a United States national or citizen. The IJ then noted that Brens had never 

appealed from the denial of his naturalization application, and concluded that he had not 

been “pardoned,” as he was actually arguing that an immigration officer pardoned him of 

criminal matters. 

In March 2011, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision and dismissed Brens’s appeal. 

The BIA first noted that Brens did not challenge the determination that his 2008 

convictions rendered him removable. Citing this Court’s decision in Salim v. Ashcroft, 

350 F.3d 307 (3d Cir. 2003), it then agreed with the IJ that Brens had not established that 

he was a United States citizen or national. The BIA also explained that to the extent 

Brens alleged that improprieties occurred during the naturalization process, neither it nor 

the IJ had “jurisdiction to review the District Director’s decision to deny his application 

for naturalization. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 335.1-.13, 336.1-.9. An applicant may request a 
4

hearing on the denial of the naturalization application (or if the request is untimely, a 

motion to reopen) with the District Director or with the USCIS office that denied the 

naturalization application. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 336.2(a), (c)(2)(ii).” The BIA also rejected 

Brens’s argument that he was denied due process during a June 2010 hearing before the 

IJ. 

Brens, proceeding pro se, now petitions for review of the BIA’s final order of 

removal.2

II.

We have jurisdiction to review a BIA’s final order of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 

1252(a). Brens does not, however, challenge the BIA’s determination that he is 

removable as an aggravated felon. Rather, he asserts that he is a United States citizen and 

thus is not subject to removal. Because there are no genuine issues of material fact about 

Brens’s nationality, we have jurisdiction over this claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5)(A), 

exercising plenary review. Jordon v. Att’y Gen., 424 F.3d 320, 328 (3d Cir. 2005). 

A national is either a citizen of the United States or “a person who, though not a 

citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 

1101(a)(22). As the BIA explained, we have held that for a citizen of another country, 

“nothing less than citizenship will show permanent allegiance to the United States.” 

Salim, 350 F.3d at 310. Brens’s application for naturalization was denied. He therefore 

 

2 Brens has not challenged the BIA’s determination regarding his due process 

claim. 
5

has never obtained United States citizenship and is not a national of this country. See id.

(holding that the mere filing of an application does not establish a person’s status as a 

national); In re Navas-Acosta, 23 I. & N. Dec. 586, 588 (BIA 2003).3 Accordingly, 

Brens is an “alien” who is subject to removal from the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 

1101(a)(3); 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a). 

Brens also argues that the BIA erred by failing to consider his argument that the 

government’s conduct during the naturalization process violated his rights. However, the 

BIA correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review this claim, as appeals from 

denials of naturalization applications must be filed with the DHS, at which time the 

applicant may request a hearing before an immigration officer. See 8 C.F.R. § 336.2(a); 8 

U.S.C. § 1447. Further, we lack jurisdiction to review the DHS’s free-standing denial of 

a naturalization application, which is not a final order of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 

1252(a)(1). 4

In sum, we conclude the BIA appropriately dismissed Brens’s appeal. We will 

therefore deny his petition for review.

 

3 As the BIA determined, Brens’s reliance on United States v. Morin, 80 F.3d 124 

(4th Cir. 1996), is misplaced because we have expressly rejected that case. See Salim, 

350 F.3d at 310 (finding Morin “wholly unpersuasive”). 

4

If an applicant’s administrative appeal is unsuccessful, he or she may seek 

judicial review by filing a declaratory judgment action in the federal district court. See 8 

U.S.C. § 1503(a); Breyer v. Meissner, 214 F.3d 416, 420, 421 (3d Cir. 2000).