Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60470 Su m m ar y Cal endar
K E N R IC KC IC E R O , al so kn ow n as K en ri ck A lbertC i cero, P et i t i on er
v. E R IC H . H O L D E R , J R ., U .S . A T T O R N E YG E N E R A L , Res po nde nt
Pet i t i o n f

o rRev i e w o f

a n Ord e ro f

t he B o a r do f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls B IAN o. A 035 205 085
B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * K en ri ck C i cero peti t i on s f or r evi ew of th e d e ci si on of t h e B oard of I m m ig r a t io n A p p e a l s (B IA) d is m is s in gh is a p p e a l o f a n im m ig r a t io n ju d g e ’s fi n d in gth a th e d id n o to b t a in d e r iv a t iv e c it iz e n s h ip a s ar e s u lt o f h i s fa t h e r ’s
n atural i zati on . Ana t i on al i t y cl ai m is a q u est i on of l aw t h at w e revi ew de n ovo. Marqu ez- Marqu ez v. G on zales , 455 F. 3d 548, 554 ( 5t h C i r . 2006)
. “ Pet i t i onerhas th e b u r d e n o f p r o v in gth a t h e q u a lifie s fo r n a tu r a liz a tio n , a n d h e m u s t d o s o in t h e face of t h e Su prem e C ou rt ’ s m an da t e t h at w e res olve al ldou bts i n favor of United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April13, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-60470 Document: 00511078287 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/13/2010N o. 09- 60470

2 th e U n i tedS tates a n dag a i n st t h ose see k i n g citi ze n sh i p . ” B u st am an t e- B arrera v. G on zales, 4 4 7 F .3d 3 8 8 , 3 9 4 -9 5 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). Rel yi ng o n t he pr o vi s i o ns o f f o r m e r8 U
. S. C. § 1 43 2, Ci c e r o a r gue s t hathe
w as i n t h e cust odyof hi s father i n 198 0 w h en hi s fa th e r becam e a na t u ral i zed ci t i zen. Form er s ect i on 143 2 requ i res i n rel evan tpart t h at t h e chi l d of divorced pa rents, s uc h a s Ci c e r o , ha ve b e e n i n t he s o l e l e ga lc us t o dyo f t he na t ur al i zed p a r e n t. Se eBus t am ant e - Bar r e r a, 447 F. 3d at395- 96. C i cero’ s paren t s’d ivorce decree a w arded cu st odyof C i cero t o h i s m ot h er. A l t hough C i c er o a r gues t hatot herevi denc e show s t hathi s par ent s agr ee d t hat h e w ou l d be i n hi s fa th e r’ s c u st ody , t h ere i s no evi den ce t h at hi s father ever o b ta in e dth e re q u ir e d s o le le g a l cu s to d yo f h im
. Se eBus t am ant e - Bar r e r a, 447 F .3 da t 3 9 5 -9 6 ; s e ea ls o Ne h m ev . I.N.S ., 252 F
. 3d 41 5 , 4 2 6 (5 t h C i r. 2001) (i nt er pre t i ng phras e “ l egals epar at i on” i n t he s am e s t at ut e)
. As C i c er o has
n o ts h o wn t h a th e wa s i n t h e s o l e l e g a lc u s t o d yo f h i s fa t h e r , h e h a s n o ts h o wn th a t h e o b ta in e dd e r iv a tiv e cit iz e n s h ip u n d e r§ 1 4 3 2
. Se eBus t am ant e - Bar r e r a, 447 F. 3d at395- 96. Ci c e r o ’ s pe t i t i o n fo rre vi e w i s D EN I ED
. Ci c e r o ’ s m o t i o ns f o ra ppo i nt m e nt of coun selan d for rel ease on bon d p en di n g t h e di sposi t i on of hi s pet i t i on f

or r e v i e w a l s o a r e DE NI ED
. Case: 09-60470 Document: 00511078287 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/13/2010