A fte r ex am in in g th e b rie fs a n d th e re c or d , w e h av e c on c lu d ed th atora l arg u m en t is * u n n ec es sa ry . T h u s, th e a p p ea l is su b m itt ed on th e b rie fs a n d th e re c or d
. SeeF ED . R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2) . 

# United States Court of App eals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 6 0604 Subm i tte d A ugust 1 8, 20 09 * Deci ded A ugust 2 0, 20 09

B efo re A N N C L A IR E W IL L IA M S, Cir cu i tJudg e D IA N E S. SY K E S, Cir cu i tJudg e JO H N D A N IE L T IN D E R, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 0 9- 1560 SA M U E L D U R A N D , P etitio ner, v. ER I C H . H OL DE R, J R. , A tto rney G en er al of t h e U n ite d Sta te s, Res pond e nt . Pe ti ti o n fo rRe vi ew o fa n Or dero fthe Board o fI m m i gr ati on Ap peal s.

N o. A 046 029 015

O R D E R Sam uelDurand, a ci ti zen o fH ai ti, co ntest ed hi s r em ova lo n the gr ound that he w as el i g ibl e f o rc i ti ze ns hi p thr o ugh h i s f athe r, a na tu r al i ze d Uni te d S ta te s ci ti ze n. T he i m m i gr ati on j ud ge rej ecte d D urand’s ar gum ents and or dered hi m r em ove d. The Boar d of NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To be ci ted o nl y in acco rdance w i th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 09
- 1560 Page 2

I m m i g r at i o n Appea l s affi r m ed, a nd Dur an d no w pet i ti o ns f o rr ev i ew. We de nythe pet i ti o n. D u ra n d w as bo rn in H ait i onJu n e 1 9, 19 80 to H ait ian p ar en ts . H e d oe s n otkn ow if his p aren ts w ere m arried at th e tim e of his birth, but h e beli eves thatthey m arried before he turned ei ghtee n. In 199 5, Durand’s f ather, wh o has s i nce di ed, bec am e a natur al i zed ci ti zen o fthe U ni ted S tat es. Durand and hi s m othe r f ol l owed hi s f atherto the U ni ted S tat es the ne xt ye arand l ate r becam e l aw ful perm anent r esi dents. In 200 7, Durand w as convi cted ofr obbe ryand agg ra vate d batte ryunder I l l i noi s l aw and sent enced to f our yea rs ’ im p ris on m en t. See 720 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 5/ 18- 1( a) ; 5/ 12- 4(b) ( 8) . That yea r Du ra nd was al so c o n v i c t e d o fma n u f a c tu r i n ga n d d e l i v e r i n gc a n n ab i s a n d s e n t e n c e d t o a na d d i t i o n a lt wo ye ar s in p ris on . See 720 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 550/5( d). Base d on thes e co nvi cti ons f or agg ra vate d fe l oni es, the Dep ar tm ent o fH om el and Secur i ty i ni ti ate d rem ova lpro ceedi ngs ag ain sth im . See 8 U. S . C. § § 11 01 ( a) ( 43 ) ( F ) , ( G) ; 1 22 7( a) ( 2) ( A)( i i i ) . In a ddi ti o n t o c l ai m i ng th ath e c ou ld n otbe rem ov ed be c au se h e w as eligib le for d er iva tiv e c itiz en sh ip th ro u gh h is f ather, Durand al so appli ed f orr el i efunder the Conventi on Agai nst Tor ture . A t hi s r em ova lhear i ng, an i m m i gr ati on j ud ge ( IJ ) expl ai ned on the r eco rd that, alt h ou gh cu rre n t la w p ro vid es th atalien ch ild re nu n d er eigh te en qu alify for c itiz en sh ip if ei th ero fthe i rpa r en ts b ec o m e ci ti ze ns , tha t l aw’ s appl i ca ti o n i s l i m i te d t o c hi l dr enwho wer e unde re i g ht ee n in o ra fte r2 00 1, whenthe l aw b ec ame e ffec ti ve . Be ca us e Dur an d tu r ne d e i g ht ee n in 1 99 8, the IJr ea so ne d tha t he was f o r ec l o se d fr o m e st ab l i sh i ng ci ti zenshi p thro ugh hi s f ather
. The IJther ef or e r ej ecte d D urand’s cl ai m o fderi vati ve ci ti zenshi p. The IJal so denie d D urand re l i efunder the CA T because he ha d not s how n that he was to rtured in H ai tiand had not prese nted any cre dibl e e vi dence thathe woul d be m ist re at ed if h e re tu rn ed to H ait i. O nap p ea l D u ra n d p rin c ip ally ch alle n ge s th e IJ’s c on c lu sio nth ath e w as st at u to rily ineli gible for citizensh ip th roug h h is f ath er. W he re, as here, the B oard ad op ts th e IJ’ s d ec isio nw ith ou t fu rt h er an aly sis of its ow n, w e re vie w th e IJ’s d ec isio nd ire c tly
. See C a stilho de O liv eira v . Ho lder, 564 F.3d 892 , 896 (7th C ir. 2009). A lthou gh Du ran d ’s ag g r av at ed fel o ni es l i m i t th e sc o pe o fo urr ev i ew o fhi s r emov alo r dert o c o ns ti tu ti o na la nd l ega lquesti ons, hi s co ntenti on that the IJappli ed the w ro ng st atute to r eso l ve hi s e l i gibi l i ty for cit ize n sh ip is a q u es tio nof law w h ich falls w ith inth e s c op e o f ou r j u ris d ict ion . See B o sede v . M uk a sey, 51 2 F .3d 94 6, 95 0-5 1 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); Ha m id v . Go nz a les, 417 F. 3d 642, 64 7 (7th C ir. 2005). Du ra nd wants us t o ass ess hi s ci ti zenshi p cl ai m under the Chil d C i ti zenshi p A ct o f 2000 , wh i ch pro vi des thata chi l d bor n outs i de ofthe U ni ted S tat es autom ati cal l y b eco m es aN o. 09
- 1560 Page 3

ci ti ze n whe n s ev er alc o ndi ti o ns ha ve b ee n ful fi l l ed, i nc l udi ngtha t th e ch i l d ha s atl ea sto ne ci ti zen par ent, i s under ei ghtee n, and l i ves i n the U ni ted S tat es i n the custo dy ofthe ci ti zen p ar en t. 8 U .S.C . § 14 31 (a). D u ra n d as su m es th atth is A c t n ec es sa rily a p p lies to h im because he m et these thr ee re quir em ents i n the past— he m ove d to the Unite d Sta tes to l i ve w i th hi s f ather, a natura l i zed U ni ted S tat es ci ti zen, i n 199 6, two ye ar s be f or e he turned eig h te en — an d th u s, h e s ay s, h e c an n otbe rem ov ed
. See, e.g., W edd erburn v. IN S, 215 F. 3d 79 5, 79 7 (7 th C ir. 20 00 ) (n ot in g th atcit ize n sh ip is d efe n se ag ain strem ov al). U n for tu n at ely for D ura nd , as the IJcorrectly stated , he h ad to establish th at he satisfi ed the sta tu tory re quir em ents a

fterth e A c t’s effe c tiv e d at e, Fe b ru ar y 2 6, 20 01 , to b e e ligib le for cit ize n sh ip u n d er th e la w . See 8 C .F.R . § 32 0.2 (a); see also P ina v. M uk a sey, 542 F.3d 5, 7 ( 1st C ir. 2008); D ave v. Ashcroft, 36 3 F . 3d 649, 65 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) . And Durand turned ei ghtee n i n 199 8, thre e y ear s befo reth e A c t t oo k e ffec t. H i s cl ai m to ci ti zenshi p i s there f or e r eso l ved und erthe l ega lr egi m e that pr eceded th e C h ild C itiz en sh ip A c t. See D a ve, 36 3 F .3d at65 4; see also P o o le v. M uk a sey, 522 F. 3d 259, 26 4 (2 d C ir. 20 08 ) (cla im s o f d er iva tiv e c itiz en sh ip are d ec id ed by look in g t o th e la w in effect w hen a peti ti onerfulfi l l ed the l astr equi re m ent forci ti zenshi p). The pr i orte st f or deri vati ve ci ti zenshi p provi ded thata chi l d bor n outs i de the U ni ted S tat es to al i en par ents wa s a c i t i z e n i fo ne o fthe f o l l o wi ngc o nd i t i o ns a pp l i e d: ( 1) the natura l i zati on o fbo th par ents; o r ( 2 ) the n a tur a l i z a t i o n o fthe s ur v i v i ngp a r e nti fo ne o fthe p a r e nt s i s de c e a s e d; or ( 3) the natura l i zati on o fthe parent havi ng l ega lcusto dy ofthe chi l d w hen th er e ha s be ena l eg als epa r at i o n o fthe pa r en ts o rthe na tu r al i za ti o n o fthe m othe r i fthe chi l d w as born out ofwed l ockand the pater ni ty ofthe chi l d has n otbe en es ta b lish ed by legit im at ion ; an d if ( 4) such natural i zati on t ake s pl ace w hi l e s uch chi l d i s unm ar ri ed and und er th e ag e o f1 8 y ea r s; a nd ( 5) such chi l d i s r esi ding i n the U ni ted S tat es pu rs uant to a l aw ful adm i ssi on f orper m anent r esi dence atthe ti m e o fthe natura l i zati on o fthe parent l ast natura l i zed under cl ause 8 U.S . C. § 1 432( 1) , o r the par ent natural i zed under cl ause ( 2) o r ( 3) , o r ther eafterbeg i ns to r esi de perm anentl y in the U ni ted St at es w h ile u n d er th e a ge of 18 ye ar s.N o. 09
- 1560 Page 4

8 U .S.C . § 14 32 (a) (re p ea led ). D u ra n d m ee ts th e c on d itio n s in su b se c tio n s (4 ) an d (5)— h is f atherwas natura l i zed wh en Durand w as si ngl e a nd under 18 , and he there afterbeg an r es i di ngpe r m an en tly i n the Uni te d S ta te s—so he i s el i g ibl e f o rde r i va ti ve c i ti ze ns hi p i fa ny of c lau se s (1 ) to (3) ap p lies
. See P o o le, 52 2 F .3d at26 5; W edd erburn , 21 5 F .3d at79 7. Su b se c tio n s (1 ) an d (2) ar e in ap p lica b le, sin c e o n ly D u ra n d ’s fa th er w as n at u ra lize d an d h is m o th eri s st i l la l i ve . And Dur an d s i m i l ar l y do es no t sa ti sfy e i th ero fthe t wo o pti o ns pr es en te d b y s ubs ec ti o n ( 3) : hi s par en ts wer e ne ve rl eg al l y s epa r at ed, a nd a l th o ugh h e b elie ve s th ath e w as bo rn ou t o f w ed loc k, h is m ot h er h as n otbe en n at u ra lize d
. D u ra n d is th e r e f o r e i n e l i g ib l e f o rc i t i z e n s h i p , a n d th e IJc o r r e c t l y d e n i e d h i s c l a i m. I n the i ssue sect i on o fhi s br i ef, Durand al so ass er ts that he was denie d du e pr oce ss when th e IJr ej ec te d hi s cl ai m f o rr el i efunde rthe CAT. Dur an d ne ve rde ve l o ps th e ar gu m en t, h ow ev er , an d so it is ab an d on ed
. See O ga yo nn e v. M uk a sey, 530 F. 3d 514, 52 2 ( 7th C ir. 20 08 ); Ha xh iu v . M uk a sey, 51 9 F . 3d 685, 69 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) . But in any eve nt, we see no th i ngi n the r ec o r d tha t demons tr at es l eg ale r r o r . Appl i ca nt s se ek i ngr el i efunde rthe C A T m u stsh ow th atit is “m or e like ly th an n ot ” t h atth ey w ill be t or tu re d if re m ov ed
. 8 C .F.R . § 12 08 .16 (c )(2) ; see Ra ph eal v. M uk a sey, 533 F.3d 521 , 526-27 (7th C ir. 2008). A nd here th e IJa ppl i ed th e co r r ec t l eg als ta nda r d a nd r ul ed th atDur an d f ai l ed to pr es en t any cre dibl e e vi dence i n supp or t o fhi s cl ai m thathe woul d l i kely b e t or ture d i fhe r etur ned to H ait i, a c on c lu sio nth atis in su lat ed from ap p ella te rev iew . See Ha m id, 417 F. 3d at 647. D ENI ED .