Opinion ID: 168679
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Naturalization

Text: M r. Abiodun argues that if BCIS had acted promptly on his naturalization application, he would have been a naturalized United States citizen at the time of his state drug convictions and would not have become deportable. He also argues that the denial of naturalization is flawed because it was “based on a charge that was not sustained by the requisite evidence,” Pet. Br. at 9, and “[t]he conviction did not occur within [his] statutory eligibility requirement period” and “is not considered final,” id. at 9-10. W e lack jurisdiction to consider these arguments. Consistent with section 106(c) of the Real ID Act, the district court transferred to -4- this court only removal issues. See Pub. L. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231, 311 (2005) (requiring the transfer to a circuit court of any portion of a habeas case “challenging a final administrative order of removal, deportation, or exclusion”). The district court retained jurisdiction over M r. Abiodun’s habeas challenge to his naturalization proceedings and dismissed that challenge. See generally Ferry v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 1117, 1131 (10th Cir. 2006) (considering a “mixed habeas petition” and observing that “the Real ID Act did not eliminate a district court’s jurisdiction to review habeas petitions challenging an alien’s detention”). M r. Abiodun’s failure to appeal the dismissal of his naturalization challenge precludes our review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a) (providing for an appeal from a final judgment in a habeas case); id. § 2107(a) (stating that “no appeal shall bring any judgment, order or decree in an action, suit or proceeding of a civil nature before a court of appeals for review unless notice of appeal is [timely] filed”); cf. Abiodun, 461 F.3d at 1217 (recognizing that “review of a decision denying naturalization is outside the scope of removal proceedings”). 4 4 Even if one or more of M r. Abiodun’s filings in this court, such as his docketing statement, could be construed as the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal, cf. Sm ith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 245 (1992) (holding that “a document intended to serve as an appellate brief may qualify as the notice of appeal”); Ayala v. United States, 980 F.2d 1342, 1344 (10th Cir. 1992) (holding that a docketing statement and an attachment sufficiently augmented a defective notice of appeal), we conclude that the district court properly dismissed M r. Abiodun’s naturalization challenge for lack of jurisdiction. The challenge was expressly premised on 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), which gives the district court jurisdiction only when there has been no action on a naturalization application within 120 days (continued...) -5- M r. Abiodun also argues that he is not removable because he became a United States national upon executing an oath-of-allegiance form during his naturalization examination. W hen review ing a removal order, this court ordinarily has jurisdiction to consider w hether the petitioner is a national of this country. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5). But M r. Abiodun’s oath argument was presented and rejected during this court’s first review of the removal order. See Abiodun, 461 F.3d at 1215-16. W e are statutorily barred from review ing a removal order if “another court has . . . decided the validity of the order.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(2). The only exceptions are if “the petition presents grounds that could not have been presented in the prior judicial proceeding or that the remedy provided by the prior proceeding was inadequate or ineffective to test the validity of the order.” Id. Neither exception applies here to permit a second review of M r. Abiodun’s removal order.