Case Name: Guillermo Alberto HOWARD, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF the UNITED STATES, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-07
Citations: 184 F. App'x 173
Docket Number: No. 05-3895
Parties: Guillermo Alberto HOWARD, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF the UNITED STATES, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RENDELL, AMBRO and ROTH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 184
Pages: 173–175

Head Matter:
Guillermo Alberto HOWARD, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF the UNITED STATES, Respondent.
No. 05-3895.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) April 10, 2006.
Filed: June 7, 2006.
Guillermo Alberto Howard, New Brunswick, NJ, pro se.
Neil R. Gallagher, Office of United States Attorney, Newark, NJ, for Respondent.
Before: RENDELL, AMBRO and ROTH, Circuit Judges.
. Honorable Jane R. Roth assumed senior status on 5/31/06.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
Guillermo Howard petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge's decision denying his motion to terminate his immigration proceedings and ordering him removed to Panama. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition.
On March 20, 2003, Howard was charged as removable based on his conviction for an aggravated felony. Howard filed a motion to terminate the removal proceedings and argued that he is a national or a citizen of the United States. On August 19, 2003, the Immigration Judge found that Howard is not a United States national or citizen. The BIA dismissed the appeal. Howard filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the District Court which was converted to a petition for review and transferred to this Court pursuant to the REAL ID Act.
Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), this court has jurisdiction to review questions of law raised on appeal of a final order of removal of an alien who has committed an aggravated felony. Thus, under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5)(A), we have jurisdiction to review Howard's claim of nationality because there is no genuine issue of material fact with respect to that claim. The parties do not dispute the underlying facts of the case. We exercise plenary review over Howard's claims. Jordon v. Attorney General, 424 F.3d 320, 328 (3d Cir.2005).
Howard argues that he acquired citizenship through his birth in Panama and his subsequent adoption by his United States citizen father. However, because at the time of his birth in Panama, neither of his parents was a United States citizen, Howard did not acquire citizenship because, at the time of his birth in Panama, his parents were neither United States citizens or nationals. See 8 U.S.C. § 1403. Howard further argues that he became a citizen under the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 when his United States citizen father adopted him. However, this Court has held that the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 does not apply retroactively. See Morgan v. Attorney General, 432 F.3d 226, 230 n. 1 (3d Cir.2005).
Howard also asserts that he became a national of the United States when he entered the military and took an oath of allegiance. He bases this argument on 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22)(B), which provides that a national of the United States can be "a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States." However, we have held that, for a citizen of another country, "nothing less than citizenship will show 'permanent allegiance to the United States.' " Salim v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 307, 310 (3d Cir.2003) (per curiam). Howard requested that the removal proceedings be terminated to allow him to apply for naturalization based on his service in the United States military during the conflict in Grenada. However, even if Howard was eligible for naturalization for his military service, he failed to apply, and now, as a result of his aggravated felony conviction, he is ineligible for citizenship. See 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a)(3); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(7), (8).
For the above reasons, we will deny the petition for review.