1

0 7
- 3 6 9 1
- ag (L), 08
- 3 7 7 6
- ag (C o n) G ordon v. H ol der B IA A34 155 714 

### UNITED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE SE CON D C IRCU IT 

## S UM M ARY ORDER

R UL I NG S B Y S UM M ARY OR DE R DO NO T HA V E P RE CE DE NT I AL E F F E CT . C I T AT I ON T O A S UM M ARY OR DE R F I L E D AF T E R J ANU ARY 1, 2007, I S PE RM I TTED AN D I S GOVERNED BY F EDER AL R ULE OF A PPELLATE P RO CED UR E 3 2 .1 AND T HI S CO URT ’ S L OC AL R ULE 32. 1. 1. W HE N CI T I NG A S UM M ARY OR DE R I N A D OC UM E NT F I L E D W I T H T HI S CO URT , A PA RTY M UST CI TE EI THER THE F E DE RAL A P P E NDI X OF AN E L E CT RO NI C DA T ABA SE ( W I T H T HE NO T AT I ON “ SUM M AR Y ORD ER ” ). A P A R T Y C I TI N G A SU M M A R Y O R D ER M U ST SE RVE A C OPY OF I T ON A NY PA RTY NO T REPR ES ENTED BY CO UN SE L .

A t a s tate d ter m o f

th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e S e c o n d C irc u it, h e ld at t he D ani el P. M oy ni han U ni t ed St at es C our t hous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n t he C i t y of N ew Y or k, on t he 5 day of M ar ch, t w o t hous and and t en. th P R E S E N T : B ARRI

NG TO N D . PA RKER, P E T E R W
. H A LL, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circ uit J ud ge s.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --x TROY ANTH ONY F RANCI S GORDON, Petitioner , -v.- No. 07-3691-a g(L ), 08-3776-a g(Con) ERI C H. HOL DER, J R., Respondent
.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -x Appea ringfor the Petitioner: H. RAYMOND F AS ANO , Madeo & Fa sano, Ne w York, N ew York. Ap pe ari ngfo r t

he Re sp on de nt: ANDREW B. I NS EN GA , (Tony

West, W illiam C . Peache y , on the brief ), Tria l Attorney , Offic e of Immigration L itigation, United States Depa

rtment of Just ice, Washing ton, D.C.2

Petitions from two dec isions of the Boa rd of Immigration Appeals. UP ON DUE CONSIDERATION i ti s h e r e b y ORDERED, ADJUDG ED, AND DECREED that the petitions for revie w ar e DISMISSE D. Petitioner Troy

Anthony Fr ancis Gor don, a native a nd citizen of J amaica , petitions for revie w of a

J uly 30, 2007 order

of the B IA, deny

ing his motion to reopen. T he B IA found that Gordon wa s not entitled to reopeningbeca use he ha d no colora

ble claim to United States citizenship on t he basis of de rivative c itiz enship and ha d shown no prejudice resultingfrom any putative ineff

ective a ssistance of c ounsel. In re Troy Anthony F rancis Gordon, No. A 34 155 714 (B .I .A. J ul 30, 2007). Gordon a lso petitions for reviewof a June 30, 2008 order of the B IA that denied Gor don’s motion to reopen, in which he had ar gued that a putative chang e in the law entitled him to United St ates c itiz enship. In re Troy Anthony F rancis Gordon, No. A 34 155 714 (B .I .A. J un 30, 2008). Gordon wa s order ed re moved in abstentia from the United States on D ece mber 4, 1991 under f ormer se ction 241(a) (11) of the Immigration and Natura liz ation Act (“ I NA”) , 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a) (11) ( 1989) as a

n alien convic ted of a

controlled substanc e violation. His application for
wa ive r o f d e po rt atio n w a s d e e me d a ba nd on e d, and

ov e r n e arl y

tw o d e c a de s h e ha s f

ile d mu lti ple motions t o reope n and appe als to the BIA. In the first of the two motions to reope n under consideration here, G ordon cla imed, inter alia, that he der ived citizenship from his parents. Prior to our consider ing the first petition, Gordon filed to the B IA a se cond motion to reopen
asser ting ther e had be en a c hang e in law, spe cifica lly this court’s disposition i n Poole v. Mukase y, 5 2 2 F
. 3 d

2 5 9 ( 2 d C i r . 2 0 0 8 )
. W e s t ay e d

b r i e f i n go nth e f

i r s tp e t i t i o n , an d

a f t e r th e B IA3

de nie d G or do n’ s se c on d mo tio n to re op e n, we c on so lid ate d th e tw o. We a ssume the pa rt ie s’ familiarity

with the underly

ing f acts a nd proce dural history

in this case. Gordon see ks in part to have this cour t reviewthe B IA’s exerc ise of its authority under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) to reope n sua sponte a ca se in which it has re ndere d a dec ision. I t is settled law that cour

ts lack jurisdiction to consider the B IA’s wholly discretionar

y authority under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a)
. See A li v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 518 ( 2d Cir. 2006). Except to the ext ent discussed below, w e ar e without jurisdiction in these two matters and the petitions will be dismiss ed. Our l a c k o f j ur isd ic tio n to re vie w the B IA’ s d isc re tio na ry de c isi on do e s n ot f

or e c los e thi s court’s jurisdiction to consider the leg al question of whe ther pe titioner is a citizen of the United States. See A shton v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 95, 97 ( 2d Cir. 2005). “[I ]f a petitioner cla ims to be a
natio na l of

the Un ite d St ate s and

the c ourt of a pp e a ls f ind s f ro m th e ple a din g s a

nd the a ff ida vit s that no g enuine issue of

materia l fac t about the petitioner’s nationality is presente d, the cour

t shall decide the nationality claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)( 5)(A) . I f a g enuine que stion of material fac t does arise , the Court “shall transf er pr ocee dings to the district c ourt of the United States f or the judicial district in which the petitioner r esides for a new hear ing on the nationality claim and a dec ision on that claim . . ..” See 8 U. S
. C
. § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 5 )( B)
. Inth e a l t ern at i v e, i nco n s i d er i n g a c la im t o d e ri vativ e c iti zen sh ip t hat w a s a lr e a dy

pr e se nte d to the B IA, we re ta in t he a uth or ity to
rema nd that question to the BIA for r econside ration of what relief mig ht be ava ilable to the petitioner. See P oole, 522 F.3d at 266.4

We c on sid e r a

c la im t o Unit e d St ate s c iti zen sh ip o n a pp e a l f ro m th e B IA u sin gthe same standard a s that applies to decidinga motion for summary judgme nt under Rule 56 of the Fe dera l Rules of Civil P roce dure. See A gosto v. INS. 436 U.S. 748, 754 (1978). “A ccor dingly , the g overnme nt, as the par

ty seekingwhat amounts to summary judgme nt, ‘bea

rs the burde n of
e sta bli sh ingthat no g e nu ine iss ue of mate ri a l f

a c t e xists and

that th e un dis pute d f

a c ts e sta bli sh [i ts] rig ht to judgment as a matter of la

w.’” Joseph v . Att’y Ge n. of the U.S., 421 F.3d 224, 230 (3 d C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( qu o t i n g Rodriguez v. City of New Y ork, 72 F.3d 1051, 1060- 61 (2d Cir. 1995)).

“ [T]he no n- mov ingpa

rt y mus t of fe r s uf fi c ie nt p ro of

to a llo w a

re a so na ble fa c tf ind e r t o d e c ide in its favor.” Mandell v. County of Suffolk &John Gallagher, 316 F.3d 368, 377 ( 2d Cir. 2003). F or me r s e c tio n 3 21 (a ) o f t

he I NAstate s th at a

min or bo rn outsi de the Un ite d St ate s is entitled to United States citiz enship upon “the naturalization of both parents . . . if . . . [s] uch
natur a lizatio n ta

ke s p la c e wh ile su c h c hil d is un de r t he a g e of e ig hte e n ye ars , a

nd
. . . [s]u c h c hil d is residingin the United States pursuant to a la wful admission for pe rmane nt residenc e at the time of the natura liz ation of the pa rent last natur alized . . ..” 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a). Petitioner argues that this court’s de cision in Poole has established a n exception where by

derivative citizenship shoul d be g rante d when the la st parent to file f or citizenship submi tted an N- 400 Application for N atura liz ation (“N -400”) befor e the c hild’s eig hteenth birthday , but, beca use of inexpl icable a dminist rative de lay in proce ssing the a

pplication, the par ent was naturalized after the child’s eighteenth birthday
. Poole, 522 F.3d at 265. The holdingin Poole, ho we ve r, is inapplicable to pe titioner’s ca se.Petitioner also relies upon Lewis v. McElroy, 294 Fe d. Appx. 637 (2d Ci r. 2008), a 1 s um m a r y o r d e r i nw h i c hw e r e m an d e d

th e p e t i t i o n e r ’ s c l a i mo f

d e r i v at i v e c i t i z e n s h i p t o th e B IA for f urther c onsideration bec ause the petitioner’s mother’ s citiz enship application was approve d on e month p ri or

to p e tit ion e r’ s e ig hte e nth bir thd ay , b ut whe re natur a lizatio n d id n ot o c c ur un til four months later. While illustrative of how Poole has bee n applied, “[r]ulings by summary order do not have pr ece dential ef fec t.” L ocal Rule 32.1.1(a ).

5 In Poole, the B IA had not conside red pe titioner’s claim to derivative citizenship, but rathe r dismissed his appeal a s untimely filed. Poole, 522 F.3d at 262. We remande d petitioner’s derivative citizenship claim for the B IA to consider whether a two-year

delay in proce ssing petitioner’s mother’ s N-400, should be take n into account a s “some basis for relieving [petit ioner] of the re quirement that his mother [be] naturalized prior to his eig hteenth birthday .” Id. at 26 5. We n ote d th at Po ole ’s mot he r a pp lie d f or c iti zen sh ip f

if te e n mo nth s b e fo re his eig hteenth birthday
. Id. at 266. “The rec ord provides no indication why the Gover

nment took two y ear s to process he r application. A more expeditious processing , if completed w ithin two y ear s, would have pr ovided [petiti oner] with derivative c itiz enship.” Id. at 265. 1 Petitioner was born O ctober 21, 1962. Petitioner’s fathe r wa s naturalized on May 5, 1977, when pe titioner was four

teen. Petitioner’s mother was naturalized on Dec ember 4, 1981, a year and tw o mo nth s a ft e r p e tit ion e r’ s e ig hte e nth bir thd a y . Co ns tr uin gthe fa c ts i n th e light m os t favor able to the pe titioner, the ea rliest date on whic h petitioner’s mother c ould be found to have applied for

citizenship i s J uly

2, 1980, one hundre d and ele ven day s befor e petitioner’ s eig hteenth birthday , and one year , five months and two day s befor e the pr ocessingof her N-400
was c omplete and she beca me a c itiz en. Th e B IA, in i ts o rd e r o f Jun e 20 08 , h a s a lr e a dy c on sid e re d G or do n’ s a

rgume nts and

ha sLe wis is even less he lpful to Gordon than Poole, since L ewis’s mother’ s application wa s 2 approve d one month befor e his eig hteenth birthday , and her swea ring -in ce remony

was de lay ed for no a ppare nt rea son. Gordon’s mother ’s N-400 a pplication for c itiz enship, in contrast, wa s not approve d until well after his e ighte enth birthday had passe d. 6 corr ectly distinguished the instant fa cts from those in Poole. As the B IA noted, Poole’s mother’ s application wa s filed fiftee n months before his eig hteenth birthday , both demonstratingher due diligenc e in pursuingcitizenship i n a timely way to benef it her son and makingit more likely that Poole was disadvanta g ed by an unre asonable delay

on the ag ency ’s par

t in processingthe application. He re G ordon’s mother’ s application wa s filed less than four months before he turned e ighte en. We there fore cannot sa y here , as we did in Poole, that a “mor e expeditious proce ssing, if c ompleted within two y ear s, would have pr ovided the petitioner w ith derivative citizenship.” Poole, 52 2 F .3 d at 26 5. Ev e n h a d th e I NS t ake n o nly

fo ur months to p ro c e ss petitioner’s mother’ s N-400, petitioner w ould stil l be inelig ible for de rivative c itiz enship. Also in contradistinction to Poole, wher e the B IA had not conside red the petitioner’s claim to derivative citizenship at all, here the B IA consider ed, and r ejec ted, Gordon’ s claim that h e w a s e n t i t l e d

t o d e r i v at i v e c i t i z e n s h i p th r o u g hh i s m o th e r . Inr e j e c t i n gth atc l a i mth e B IA found no evide nce to sug g est that the four -month delay at issue was “ untoward.” Gordon ha s offe red no r ationale f

or our r ejec ting the B IA’s conc lusion, and there is no ba sis in the recor d or i nco m m o nex p er i en ce t o s u gges tth atfo ur m o n th s i s an un re as o n ab l y l o n g t i m e f

o r p ro ce s s i n g a natura liz ation application. Whil e the jurisprude nce of this Ci rcuit per

mits, under cer

tain limit ed 2 circ umstances, a

rema nd to the BIA for r eexamination of “what relief, if any , might be a ccor ded . . . with respec t to [ a] claim to derivative c itiz enship,” this is not one of those ca ses. Poole, 522 F.3d at 266.7

Gordon having f

ailed to adduc e evide nce sug g estingthat the B IA over looked some fa ctor bear ing on the timing of his mother be cominga United States c itiz en, and the BIA having pr ov ide d a ll the c on sid e ratio n th at w a s d ue to G or do n’ s a

rgume nts , G or do n h a s n o c ogniza ble claim to United States citizenship under forme r sec tion 321(a) of the I NA. Having r esolved that
c la im, we la c k ju

ri sd ic tio n to c on sid e r a

ny fu rt he r t he B IA’ s e xer c ise of

its sua sponte a

uth or ity
un d e r 8 C
. F
. R
. § 1 0 0 3
. 2 ( a )
. T h e p e t i t i o nf o r r e v i e wi s h e r e b y DISMISSE D. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk