N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M AR VIN R AM ON EC HEGOYEN, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 14-70456 Age n c y No. A043-136-795 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 24, 2016 * * B e fore : LEAVY, FER NANDEZ, a

nd R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s. M arvin R am on Ec he goy e n, a native and c itiz e n

of Nic ara gua , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de te rm ining tha t he wa s re m o va

ble 

# FIL ED MAR 01 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).and de ny i ng c anc e lla tion of re m ova l . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie wde novo que stions of la w. C oronado v . Holde r , 759 F.3d 977, 982 (2014). W e de ny

in pa rt a nd gra nt in pa rt the pe tition for re vie w, a nd re m and. To pre va i l on his c la im

to de rivative U.S. c itiz e nship, Ec h e goy e n wa s re quire d to provetha

t “ the re ha s be e n a

le ga l se pa

ration of thepa

re nts.” Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1432(a)(3) (1981). B e c a use Ec he goy e n ha s fa i le d to produc e any e vide nc e tha

t his pa re nts we re m arrie d, he ha s fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine issue of m ate ria l fa c t a s to his c itiz e nship a nd, a c c ordingly , we c onc lude that pe titione r ha s not e sta blishe d his c la im

of de riva tive c itiz e nship. Se e8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(5)(A) (“ If the pe titione r c l a im s to be a nationa l of the Unite d State s a nd the c ourt of a ppe a ls finds from

the ple a d ings a

nd a ffidavits tha

t no ge nuine issue of m ate ria l fa c t a bout thepe titione r’ s na

tiona lity is pre s e nte d, the c ourt sha ll de c ide the nationa lity

c la im .” ); B arthe le my

v . Ashc roft , 329 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th C ir. 2003) (holding tha

t a pe titione r did not “ e njoy

de rivative c itiz e nship unde r . . . [8 U.S.C . § 1432(a )(3)] be c a

use his na tura l pa re nts ne v e r m arrie d a

nd thus c ould not le

gally se pa rate ” (e m pha sis in origina

l )). The B IA’ s c onc l usion tha t Ec he goy e n is re m ova

ble for having c om

m itte d a dom e stic viole n c e offe nse wa s ba se d on doc um e ntation of his 2004 ba tte ry c onvic tion, his adm i s sion tha t he ha d be e n c o nvic te d of “ a dom e stic viole nc e ,” 1 4 - 7 0 4 5 6 2and his c onc e ssion tha t he wa s re m ova

ble . Howe ve r, the re c ord shows tha t Ec he goy e n’ s 2004 ba

tte ry c onvic t ion wa s unde r Ne va da R e vise d Statute s § 200.481, a

ge ne ra l ba

tte ry sta tute tha t doe s not inc lude spe c ific dom e stic viole nc e offe nse s. B e c a

use Ec he goy e n’ s a dm issions a nd c onc e s sions c onc e rning whe the r he ha d be e n c onvic t e d of a dom e stic viole nc e offe n se are c ontra dic te d by the re c o rd, we re m and to thea ge nc y with instruc tions to perm it Ec he goy e n to withdra w his ple a ding a s to both grounds of re m ova bility . Se e Pe r e

z-Me j ia v . Holde r , 663 F.3d 403, 416-17 (9th C ir. 2011) (this c ourt m ay se t a side an IJ de te rm i nation tha

t re sts on a

n a lie n’ s e rrone ous c onc e ssion). In light of this disposition, we do not re a c h pe t itione r’ s re m a i ning c onte ntions. Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts for this petition for re vie w . PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; G RANT E D in par t; and RE M A NDE D .

1 4 - 7 0 4 5 6 3