Case Name: Joseph Kwaku BOATENG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-18
Citations: 479 F. App'x 131
Docket Number: No. 11-72044
Parties: Joseph Kwaku BOATENG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 479
Pages: 131–132

Head Matter:
Joseph Kwaku BOATENG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-72044.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
Filed Sept. 18, 2012.
Joseph Kwaku Boateng, pro se.
OIL, Colin J. Tucker, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Joseph Kwaku Boateng petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Boateng claims that he is a citizen of the United States. We conclude that the record in this case presents a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Boateng was born in the United States, and is therefore a United States citizen. Accordingly, we transfer these proceedings to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona to conduct a de novo hearing on Boateng's claim to United States citizenship. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5)(B); Ayala-Villanueva v. Holder, 572 F.3d 736, 738, 740 (9th Cir.2009). We hold the petition for review in abeyance pending the district court's decision.
MATTER TRANSFERRED TO THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA; PETITION FOR REVIEW HELD IN ABEYANCE.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.