Opinion ID: 2363952
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Duarte's claim to derivative citizenship presents an issue of law over which we have jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (judicial review preserved as to constitutional claims or questions of law); id. § 1252(b)(5)(A) (If the petitioner claims to be a national of the United States and the court of appeals finds from the pleadings and affidavits that no genuine issue of material fact about the petitioner's nationality is presented, the court shall decide the nationality claim.). Although Duarte's claim comes to us in the posture of a petition for review from the BIA's refusal to reopen removal proceedings sua sponte a discretionary decision that is normally not reviewable by the Courts of Appeals, see Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 518 (2d Cir.2006)here, Duarte's legal claim encounters no jurisdictional obstacle because the Executive Branch has no authority to remove a citizen. An assertion of U.S. citizenship is thus a denial of an essential jurisdictional fact in a deportation proceeding. Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276, 284, 42 S.Ct. 492, 66 L.Ed. 938 (1922); see also Frank v. Rogers, 253 F.2d 889, 890 (D.C.Cir.1958) (Until the claim of citizenship is resolved, the propriety of the entire proceeding is in doubt.).