Opinion ID: 3029592
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Williams as a National

Text: 9 Williams claims he is not subject to removal because he is a national of the United States. This status, he says, resulted from his expressing allegiance to the United States by filing an application for naturalization. As a result, he asserts the Executive Office for Immigration Review has no jurisdiction under the Immigration and Nationality Act to order his removal. As we explained in Salim v Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 307, 310 (3d Cir. 2003), “simply filing an application for naturalization does not prove that one ‘owes a permanent allegiance to the United States.’” And, for one who is a citizen of another country, “nothing less than citizenship will show ‘permanent allegiance . . . .’” Id. Applying this holding to the facts in Williams’ case, we find he is not presently a national. In addition, given his multiple drug-related convictions, he is permanently ineligible for citizenship. See id. (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a)(3), which requires applicants for naturalization to be of good moral character, and 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(7), (8), which provides a person who has served 180 days or more of imprisonment or has been convicted of an aggravated felony cannot be found to be of good moral character). For these reasons, we reject Williams’ claim that he is a national and not subject to the jurisdiction of the Executive Office for Immigration Review.