2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 11-7-2008 

# O gundoju v

. Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-1368

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " O gundoju v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 249. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/249NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 05- 1368

___________ OL UWAF UNMI L AYO OG UNDOJ U, Pet i t i oner

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R e sp o n d e n t

____________________________________ I ni t i al l yD ocket ed as an A ppeal fr om the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( M . D . Pa. C i v. N o. 01- C V - 00680) C onvert ed t o a Pet i t i on forR evi ew Pur s uantt o the R E A L I D A ctof 2005 A gencyN o. A 39 039 008 I m m i gr at i on J udge: C har l es H oneym an

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober30, 2008 B e f o re : B A R R Y , S M IT H a n d H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudges ( O pi ni on fi l ed: N ovember7, 2008)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM T hi s m att eror i gi nal l ycame t o ourC our tas an appe al of an or derof the U ni t edT h is s tatu te p ro v id e d , in p e rtin e n t p a rt: 1 A chi l d bor n out s i de of the U ni t ed St at es of al i en par ent s , orof an a l i en par entand a ci t i zen p arentw ho has subseq uen t l yl ostci t i zenship of the U nit ed S t at es, beco m es a c iti z e n o f

th e U n ited S tate s u p o n f u lf ill m e n t o f

th e f o llo w in g c o n d iti o n s:

. . . ( 3) T he natur al i zat i on of the par enthavi ng l egal cus t odyof the chi l d w hen ther e has been a l egal s epar at i on of the par ent s . . . ; and i f (4) S uch natur al i zat i on t akes place w hil e such c hil d is un der the ag e of e i gh t een y ears ; and ( 5) Such chi l d i s r es i di ng i n t he U ni t ed St at es pur s uantt o a l aw ful admi s s i on for perm anentr es i dence atthe t i m e of the natur al i zat i on of the par ent. . . natur al i zed unde r cl aus e . . . ( 3) of thi s s ubs ect i on, orther eaf t erbegi ns t o r es i de perm anent l yi n the U ni t ed S ta te s w h ile u n d e r t h e a g e o f e ig h te e n y e a rs . 8 U . S. C . § 1432( a) ( 1999) , r epea l ed byC C A , § 103, Pub. L . N o. 106- 395, 114 St at . 1631. 2 St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, w hi ch had de ni ed O l uw afunmi l ay o O gundoj u’ s pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus . D ue t o the pas s age of th e RE AL I D Ac t , P u b . L . No . 1 0 9 - 1 3 , 1 1 9 S t a t . 2 3 1 , wh i l e th e a p p e a l wa s p e n d i n g , we w i l l vaca t e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on, convertO gundoj u’ s habea s pet i t i on i nt o a p eti ti o n fo r rev iew , g ran t th e p eti ti o n , an d tr an sfe r th e m att er to the D istri ct C o u rtfo r a new hear i ng r egar di ng O gundoj u’ s cl ai m of der i vat i ve U ni t ed St at es ci t i zens hi p under sinc e-rep ea led 8 U . S . C . § 1 4 3 2 (a). 1 I. B eca us e w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yforthe part i es , w e nee d notdes cr i be al l the fa ct s and the l ong pr ocedur al hi s t ory . I n br i ef, O gundoj u ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es as a l aw ful3

perm anentr es i denti n 1989 atthe age of 15. D kt . #66, E xh. B . H e s t at es thathe w as t hen i n the s ol e cus t odyof hi s father , w ho w as al r eadya natur al i zed c i t i zen, and thathi s father and mot herdi vor ced manyy ear s ear l i er . I n 1996 and 1997, O gundoj u w as convi ct ed of tw o d rug cri m es, and he w as pl aced in rem ov al proceed i ng s on the basi s of t ho se c o n v ic tio n s . Id . I n the meant i m e, O gundoj u fi l ed an N - 600 form , A ppl i cat i on forC ert i fi cat e of C i t i zens hi p, cl ai m i ng he der i ved U ni t ed St at es ci t i zens hi p fr om hi s father . T he appl i cat i on w as deni ed on M ay3, 1999 beca us e of a l ack of evi dence thathi s par ent s had been marr i ed and di vor ced. D kt . #66, E xh. D . O gundoj u’ s tw o r eques t s forcons i der at i on w e re d e n ied ; se e D k t. #6 6 , E x h s. F a n d G ; an d h is a p p e a l to th e A d m in istra tiv e A p p e a ls Un i t( AAU) wa s d e n i e d o n F e b ru a r y2 9 , 2 0 0 0 ; s e e Dk t . # 6 6 , E x h . H. O n Ju ly1 3 , 2 0 0 0 , the Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e (IJ ) o rd e re d O g u n d o ju re m o v e d in abs ent i a, as nei therhe norhi s att orneyw as pr es entfora hea r i ng befor e the I J . D kt . #66, E xh. I . O gundoj u s oughtr eopeni ng, butthe I J r ej ect ed hi s cont ent i on thathe had not r ece i ved not i ce of

the r emoval hear i ng and deni ed hi s m ot i on, not i ng thatO gundoj u w as p re se n t an d in f

o rm e d o f h is h e a rin g d a te. D k t. #6 6 , E x h . J. O g u n d o ju d id n o t ap p e a l to the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B I A ) . I ns t ead, he fi l ed a ha beas pet i t i on i n the D i s tr i ctC our t , w hi ch he l at eramended t o i ncl ude hi s cl ai m of der i vat i ve ci t i zens hi p. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdet erm i ned thati thad j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i dercons t i tut i onal and l egal cl ai m s i nvol vi ng a cr i m i nal al i en’ s ci t i zens hi p cl ai m i n the cont extof a ha beas4

p ro c e e d in g , b u t d e te rm in e d th a t it la c k e d ju ri s d ic tio n to d e c id e d is p u te d q u e s tio n s o f f a c t. A s b o th O g u n d o

ju a n d th e G o v e rn m e n t r e c o g n iz e d th a t th e re w a s a d is p u te d is s u e ; i.e ., w hetherO gundoj u’ s fathert ook cus t odyof hi m fol l ow i ng a l egal s epar at i on, the D i s t r i ct C o u rt d e c lin e d to re so lv e th e c iti z e n sh ip iss u e . D k t. #1 1 2 . O g u n d o ju f iled a tim e ly appea l . D kt . #114. O n M a rc h 3 1 , 2 0 0 5 , this C o u rt g ra n ted O g u n d o ju ’s m o tio n f

o r a sta yo f

re m o v a l, and as ked the part i es t o br i ef thr ee i s s ues : “( i ) w hethera di s tr i ctcourt ’ s habea s j ur i s di ct i on i ncl udes the author i tyt o deci de a c l ai m thata pet i t i oneri s a ci t i zen of the U ni t ed St at es ; ( i i ) i f s o, w hethera habe as courtdeci di ng a ci t i zens hi p cl ai m m ayr es ol ve di s put ed i s s ues of fa ct ; and ( i i i ) w hetherA ppel l ants uffi ci ent l yexhaus t ed hi s cl ai m that h e i s a Un i t e d S t a t e s c i t i z e n . ” Le s s th a n two mo n th s l a t e r , th e REAL I D Ac tb e c a me e f f e c tiv e . A s w e h a v e c o n v e rte d th e h a b e a s p e tit io n to a p e tit io n f o r re v iew , the n e e d to deci de the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s habea s j ur i s di ct i on and the s cope of i t s j ur i s di ct i on i n that c o n te x t is o b v ia te d . Jor don v. A t t or ney G ener al , 4 2 4 F . 3 d 3 2 0 , 3 2 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). II. T he r emai ni ng l egal i s s ue i s exhaus t i on. T he ques t i on of w hethera per s on i s an al i en i s an es s ent i al j ur i s di ct i onal fac t : the G overnm entl acks the author i tyt o r emove a p e rs o n u n le s s h e o r s h e is a n a lie n . N gFu n gH

o v . W h ite , 2 5 9 U .S . 2 7 6 , 2 8 4 (1 9 2 2 ). B e c a u se w e a re re v iew in g a f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l o f

a p u rp o rte d a lien , “[ u ]n til th e c laim of ci t i zens hi p i s r es ol ved, the pr opr i etyof the ent i r e pr ocee di ng i s i n doubt . ” Fr ank v.5

R og ers , 253 F. 2d 889, 890 ( D . C . C i r . 1958) . Fur ther , al though “the exha us t i on r equi r ementof 8 U . S. C . § 1252( d) i s j ur i s di ct i onal , ” P opalv. G onz al es , 416 F. 3d 249, 2 5 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), t h e e x h a u s tio n d o c tr in e a p p lie s b yits te rm s o n ly to a lie n s . 8 U .S .C . § 1252( d) ( 1) . I f O gundoj u i s , as he cl ai m s , actual l ya U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen, the i m m i gr at i on la w s – in c lu d in g th e irre q u ir e m e n t o f a d m in is tr a tiv e e x h a u s tio n – d o n o t a p p ly to h im . O therci r cui tcourt s of appe al have thus hel d thata ci t i zens hi p cl ai m can be hear d w i thout re g a rd to w h e th e r t h e p e rs o n b ri n g in g th e c la im h a s e x h a u s te d a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s . See , e. g. , P ool e v. Mukas ey , 5 2 2 F .3 d 2 5 9 , 2 6 4 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ); O m ol o v. G onz al es , 452 F .3 d 4 0 4 , 4 0 7 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); Theagene v . G onz al es , 4 1 1 F . 3 d 1 1 0 7 , 1 1 1 0 (9th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ); Mous s a v. I

. N . S. , 302 F. 3d 823, 825 ( 8th C i r . 2002) . W e thus fi nd thatw e have juri sd ict ion to co n side r O g u n d o ju’s cit izen sh ip claim an d m u st en tert ain th at claim b ef o re § 1252( d) ( 1) can be appl i ed. W e maynotdeci de the mer i t s of O gundoj u’ s cl ai m , how ever , beca us e, as the part i es r ecogni ze, ther e r emai ns a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t , w hi ch mustbe r es ol ved b ythe D istri ct C o u rtin the firstinstan ce . 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(5 )(B ). W e w il l th ere fo re g ra n t th e p e tit io n a n d tra n sf e r to th e D istric t C o u rt f o r a n e w h e a rin g o n th e c iti z e n sh ip c l a i m.