Case Name: Luis Ramon MORALES-SANTANA, AKA Luis Morales, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, United States Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-19
Citations: 706 F. App'x 40
Docket Number: No. 11-1252-ag
Parties: Luis Ramon MORALES-SANTANA, AKA Luis Morales, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges, JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 706
Pages: 40–41

Head Matter:
Luis Ramon MORALES-SANTANA, AKA Luis Morales, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-1252-ag
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
December 19, 2017
FOR PETITIONER: Stephen A. Broome, Jacob Waldman, Ellyde Roko, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY.
FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Kathryn M. McKinney, Imran R. Zaidi, Attorneys, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
PRESENT: RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges, JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Jefferson B. Sessions III is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch as Respondent. •
Judge Jed S. Ralcoff, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Following our decision in Morales-Santana v. Lynch, 804 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2015), the Government appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed this Court's judgment in part and reversed in part, remanding the case for further proceedings. Sessions v. Morales-Santana, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1678, 198 L.Ed.2d 150 (2017). The Supreme Court held that while "[t]he gender-based distinction infecting § 1401(a)(7) and 1409(a) and (c) . violates the equal protection principle," extending favorable treatment would convert § 1409(e)'s exception for unwed U.S.-citizen mothers into the main rule displacing § 1401(a)(7) and 1409(a). Id. at 1700-01. "Section 1401(a)(7)'s longer physical-presence requirement, applicable to a substantial majority of children born abroad to one U.S.citizen parent and one foreign citizen parent, therefore, must hold sway." Id. at 1702.
In view of the Supreme Court's decision, we agree with the BIA's determination that under the circumstances of this case, Morales-Santana is not a United States citizen. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.