NOT 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. 09- 4699

______________ T E DDY Z AS HYKI N AB RE U- M E J I A, 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 es pondent

______________ O n P eti ti o n fo r R ev iew o f a n O rde r o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls A gencyN o. A 055 002 656 Im m igrati o n Ju d g e: A n d rew R . A rth u r

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

A ugus t6, 2010 B efor e: B A R R Y , A M B R O and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( fi l ed: A ugus t9, 2010 )

______________ OP I NI ON

______________ P E R C UR I AM T eddyA br eu- M ej i a pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) , w hi ch di s m i s s ed hi s appea l fr om the fi nal r emoval or derof anA br eu att empt ed t o fi l e a pe t i t i on forr evi ew of thatdeci s i on i n thi s C our t . B yor der 1 dat ed N ovember30, 2009, w e i nform ed A br eu thatw e l acke d j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derthe deni al of hi s appl i cat i on forder i vat i ve ci t i zens hi p out s i de of the cont extof a pe t i t i on for r evi ew of a f

i nal r emoval or der . A br eu v. A t t ’ yG en. , C . A . N o. 09- 3299. A s the B I A had noty eti s s ued i t s deci s i on, w e di s m i s s ed A br eu’ s cas e forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on, and inf o rm ed h im that h e m igh t be a b le t o o b tai n rev iew o f h is cl aim b yfil ing a d ec laratory j udgm entact i on i n the di s tr i ctcourt . I d. A br eu fi l ed an a ct i on i n the U ni t ed 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, on N ovember23, 2009, s eeki ng a decl ar at i on thathe i s a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen. O n M ay3, 2010, thatcourt , r efe r enci ng the i ns t antcas e, gr ant ed the G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on t o s t aythe pr ocee di ngs , as i tappea r ed that A br eu w as “pr es ent l yl i t i gat i ng thi s i s s ue i n the cont extof a pe t i t i on forr evi ew ” of the BI A’ s d e c i s i o n . Ab r e u v . De p a r tme n to f Ho me l a n d S e c u r i ty , M . D. P a . Ci v . No . 1 0 - CV 0 1 6 0 (M ay3 , 2 0 1 0 ). 2 I mm i g r a t i o n J u d g e ( “ I J ” ) . We wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. A l though A br eu i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of the D om i ni can Republ i c, he cl ai m s that h e d erive d U n it ed S tat es c it izen sh ip thro u g h h is U . S . -cit izen fa ther. A b reu fil ed a F o rm N -6 0 0 , A p p lica tio n f

o r a C e rtific a te o f

C iti z e n sh ip , w ith th e U n ited S tate s C iti z e n sh ip and I m m i gr at i on Servi ces ( “U SC I S”) . T he U SC I S deni ed A br eu’ s appl i cat i on on M ar ch 10, 2009, and on J ul y17, 2009, the A dm i ni s tr at i ve A ppeal s O ffi ce ( “A A O ”) aff i r m ed the deni al . O n A pr i l 21, 2009, the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i ty( “D H S”) char ged

1 A br eu w i th bei ng r emovabl e due t o a numberof cr i m i nal convi ct i ons . Fol l ow i ng a hear i ng, an I J found thatA br eu w as nota U . S. ci t i zen, and thathe w as r emovabl e as c h a rg e d . T h e B IA d ism iss e d th e a p p e a l, reje c tin g A b re u ’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e IJ s h o u ld hav e t erm i nated proceed i ng s t o all ow him t o p ursue hi s ci t i zenship cl ai m . T he B IA al so agr eed thatA br eu fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h thathe der i ved ci t i zens hi p thr ough hi s father . A br eu s i m i l ar l yar gues befor e thi s C our tthatthe I J s houl d have t erm i nat ed hi s r emovalO n c e A b re u ’s p e tit io n f o r re v iew w a s b e f

o re th is C o u rt, th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly 2 r efr ai ned fr om deci di ng the ci t i zens hi p i s s ue, as a dec i s i on r egar di ng nat i onal i tym us tbe d e c id e d in th is C o u rtw h e n p ro p e rl yp re s e n te d in th e c o n te x t o f a p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w . 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 5) ( A ) & ( C ) . Fur ther , A br eu has notr ai s ed anygenui ne i s s ue of m aterial fa ct th at w o u ld req u ir e u s to trans fe r th e m att er to the D istri ct C o u rtfo r a h ea ri n g . 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(5 )(B ). Pub. L . N o. 106- 395, § 103( a) , 114 St a. 1631, 1632. 3 3 p roc ee d ing s to a ll o w fo r a d ec isi o n o n h is ci ti ze n sh ip claim in the fe d era l distri ct co u rt (a n d th a t w e sh o u ld o rd e r th e p ro c e e d in g s te rm in a ted u n til th e d istric t co u rt m a k e s its deci s i on) , thatthe I J vi ol at ed hi s r i ghtt o due pr oces s , and thatthe B I A err ed i n aff i r m i ng the I J ’ s deci s i on. A br eu al s o ar gues thatthe G overnm ents houl d be equi t abl yes t opped fr om deny i ng hi m der i vat i ve ci t i zens hi p. I . W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252 t o r evi ew a fi nal or derof r emoval . Pur s uantt o § 1252( b) ( 5) ( A ) , w her e a “ pet i t i onercl ai m s t o be a na t i onal of the U ni t ed St at es and the courtof appe al s fi nds fr om the pl eadi ngs and af fi davi t s thatno g e n u in e iss u e o f

m a ter ial f

a c t ab o u t th e p e tit io n e r' s n a tio n a lityis p re se n ted , the c o u rt sh a ll deci de the nat i onal i tycl ai m . ” A br eu w as born on M ar ch 29, 1983 i n the D om i ni can 2 R epubl i c. A br eu’ s ci t i zens hi p cl ai m i s governed bys ect i on 320 of the I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct , as amended bythe C hi l d C i t i zens hi p A ctof 2000, 8 U . S. C . § 1431. 3 Pur s uantt o thatpr ovi s i on: a) A chi l d born out s i de of the U ni t ed St at es aut om at i cal l ybecomes a ci t i zen of the U ni t ed St at es w hen al l of the fol l ow i ng condi t i ons have be en ful fi l l ed:4 ( 1) A tl eas tone par entof the chi l d i s a ci t i zen of the U ni t ed S ta te s , w h e th e r b yb ir th o r n a tu ra liz a tio n . (2 ) T h e c h ild is u n d e r t h e a g e o f e ig h te e n y e a rs . ( 3) T he chi l d i s r es i di ng i n the U ni t ed St at es i n the l egal and phy s i cal cus t odyof the ci t i zen pa r entpur s uantt o a l aw ful a d m is s io n f

o r p e rm a n e n t r e s id e n c e . 8 U . S. C . § 1431. A br eu’ s fatherbeca m e a na tur al i zed U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen on A pr i l 23, 1997. H i s fatherfi l ed a Pet i t i on forA l i en R el at i ve, For m I - 130, on J une 30, 1999 on A br eu’ s behal f. A br eu w as admi t t ed t o the U ni t ed St at es as a perm anentr es i denton the b a sis o f th a t p e tit io n o n A u g u st 3 , 2 0 0 1 , a littl e m o re th a n f o u r m o n th s a f

terh is ei ght eenth bi r thday . T hus , A br eu w as not“r es i di ng i n the U ni t ed St at es i n the l egal and p h y sic a l cu sto d yo f

[ h is f a th e r] p u rsu a n t to a law f u l ad m iss io n f

o r p e rm a n e n t re sid e n t” w hen he w as “underthe age of ei ght een y ear s . ” W e thus agr ee w i th the B I A ’ s aff i r m ance of the I J ’ s fi ndi ng thatA br eu i s nota U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen. W e w i l l br i efl yaddr es s the ar gum ent s r ai s ed i n A br eu’ s br i ef. II. A br eu ar gues thatthe I J s houl d have t erm i nat ed hi s pr ocee di ng s o he coul d pur s ue h is c iti z e n sh ip c laim . H o w e v e r, as th e B IA n o ted , an IJ “ h a s lim ited a u th o rity ” to t erm i nat e pr ocee di ngs w hen an a l i en has a pendi ng appl i cat i on orpet i t i on for natur al i zat i on. A . R . 2. T he r egul at i ons pr ovi de fors uch t erm i nat i on w her e the al i en has e sta b lish e d p rim a f

a c ie e lig ib ili tyf

o r n a tu ra liza tio n , an d th e B IA h a s h e ld th a t p rim a f a c ie el i gi bi l i tyi s es t abl i s hed byan af fi r m at i ve comm uni cat i on fr om the D H S t hatthe al i en5

w oul d be el i gi bl e fornatur al i zat i on butforthe pendi ng r emoval pr ocee di ngs . I n r e A cos t a H i dal go, 24 I . & N . D ec. 103 ( B I A 2007) . A br eu di d notpr oduce a n aff i r m at i ve comm uni cat i on fr om the D H S; on the contr ary , bythe t i m e r emoval pr ocee di ngs had c o mm e n c e d , th e US CI S h a d a l r e a d yd e n i e d h i s c e r t i f i c a t e a p p l i c a t i o n ( a n d th e AAO li k ew ise d en ied A b reu ’s ap p ea l sev era l day s p ri o r t o h is fir st ap p ea ran ce b ef o re the IJ. ) W e agr ee w i th the B I A thatthe I J di d notabus e hi s di s cr et i on byfai l i ng t o t erm i nat e the r emoval pr ocee di ngs . R el at edl y , A br eu ar gues thathi s due pr oces s r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed bythe IJ’ s fai l ure t o term i nate the p roceedings. B ut i n o rdert o est abli sh a du e process vi ol at i on, an al i en musts how thathe w as pr ej udi ced. K han v. A t t ’ yG en. , 448 F. 3d 226, 236 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . B eca us e A br eu i s notel i gi bl e forder i vat i ve ci t i zens hi p, he w as not prej ud i ced b ythe IJ’ s deci si on t o g o fo rw ard w i th p roceedings. A b reu also arg u es th at be ca u se o f th e u n rea so n ab le de layin the G o v ern m en t’ s pr oces s i ng of hi s father ’ s I - 130 pet i t i on, the G overnm ents houl d be equi t abl yes t opped fr om deny i ng hi m der i vat i ve ci t i zens hi p. T o s how thates t oppel s houl d be appl i ed, A br eu

“ m u st e sta b lish (1 ) a m isre p re se n tatio n ; (2 ) u p o n w h ich h e re a so n a b lyre lied ; (3 ) to h is detr i m ent ; and ( 4) aff

i r m at i ve mi s conduct . ” M udr i c v. A t t ’ yG en. , 469 F. 3d 94, 99 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . A br eu has notes t abl i s hed thes e el ement s . Fur ther , w her e an a l i en does not m eetthe s t atut oryr equi r ement s forci t i zens hi p, a courtdoes nothave a uthor i tyt o confe r cit izen sh ip thro u g h eq u it ab le m ea n s. I. N . S . v . P an g il inan , 4 8 6 U . S . 8 7 5 , 8 8 5 (19 8 8 ).6 III . A b re u is n o t e lig ib le f

o r d e ri v a tiv e U .S . c itiz e n s h ip . H e is th u s s u b je c t to re m o v a l. We wi l l th e r e f

o r e d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w.