NATURALIZATION - NATIONAL OF THE UNITED STATES
Tovar-Alvarez v. U.S.Attorney General, ___ F.3d ___, 2005 WL 2561503 (11th Cir. Oct. 13, 2005) ("Though 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22) states that a person is a "national of the United States" if he owes "permanent allegiance to the United States," the manner in which one comes to owe allegiance to the United States is through birth or naturalization pursuant to the statutory scheme enacted by Congress, see 8 U.S.C. 1401-1409, 1421-1458. Sebastian-Soler, 409 F.3d at 1286. Moreover in Sebastian-Soler, we specifically rejected the Fourth Circuit's reasoning in Morin. 409 F.3d at 1287.
NATURALIZATION COMPLIANCE WITH FORMAL CEREMONY REQUIRED BEFORE CITIZENSHIP IS CONFERRED
Tovar-Alvarez v. U.S.Attorney General, ___ F.3d ___, 2005 WL 2561503 (11th Cir. Oct. 13, 2005) (noncitizen must participate in public citizenship ceremony in order to fully naturalize).
CITIZENSHIP - DERIVATIVE CITIZENSHIP
Kajtazi v. INS, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24173 (D.N.J. Oct. 14, 2005) (federal habeas petition granted under 28 U.S.C. 2241 challenging an INS detainer on the ground that Petitioner acquired derivative United States citizenship on July 31, 1985, when his father naturalized).
JUDICIAL REVIEW -- PETITION FOR REVIEW - JURISDICTION PRECLUSION
Santos-Salazar v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, __ F.3d __ (2d Cir. March 1, 2005) (New York conviction of attempted possession of cocaine, in violation of N.Y. Penal Law 220.16 (2000), constituted a controlled substance conviction listed in INA 212(a)(2)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(B), and precluded petition for review jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C) to review BIA denial of a motion to reopen and the underlying order of removal).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/042024p.pdf
JUDICIAL REVIEW - PETITION FOR REVIEW - COURT OF APPEAL REVERSES UNDER LANZA WHERE IT HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING ON WHICH GROUND THE BIA AFFIRMED THE REMOVAL ORDER
Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 932 (9th Cir. 2004) (where BIA affirms without opinion, reviewing court has no way of knowing on which ground or grounds the Board affirmed, and in turn whether reviewing court has jurisdiction to review the Boards decision; BIA decision therefore vacated and remanded with instructions to clarify the grounds for its affirmance).
JUDICIAL REVIEW - PETITION FOR REVIEW -- COURT OF APPEALS LACKED JURISDICTION TO REVIEW WHETHER A CONVICTION CONSTITUTED AN AGGRAVATED FELONY BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE COURT IN A TIMELY FILED PETITION FOR REVIEW
De Araujo v. Ashcroft, ___ F.3d ___, 2005 WL 418200 (1st Cir. Feb. 23, 2005) (court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to review whether conviction constituted an aggravated felony because issue was not raised before court in a timely filed petition for review; BIA decision became final when the BIA dismissed the appeal from the IJs removal order, under 8 C.F.R. 241.1 ("An order of removal made by the immigration judge at the conclusion of proceedings under section 240 of the Act shall become final ...
JUDICIAL REVIEW - PETITION FOR REVIEW - HABEAS CORPUS - WHETHER CONVICTION CONSTITUTES AGGRAVATED FELONY
The jurisdictional issue decided in Douglas v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 230 (3d Cir 2004) and Flores-Garza v. INS, 328 F.3d 797 (5th Cir.
JUDICIAL REVIEW - PETITION FOR REVIEW - JURISDICTION PRECLUSION TRIGGERED BY CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES CONVICTION PREVENTED CONSIDERATION OF PETITION FOR REVIEW - MATTER CONSTRUED AS HABEAS CORPUS PETITION AND TRANSFERRED TO DISTRICT COURT
Garcia v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 487 (7th Cir. Jan. 6, 2005) (jurisdiction limitation triggered by state controlled substances conviction precludes consideration of claim state possession conviction did not constitute aggravated felony; petition for review transferred to district court as habeas corpus petition to determine whether state felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance, which would have been punishable only as a misdemeanor under federal law, qualifies as an aggravated felony).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/041481p.pdf
JUDICIAL REVIEW - FEDERAL CIRCUIT PANEL CANNOT DISAGREE WITH PRIOR PANEL DECISION
Beardslee v. Brown, 393 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. Dec. 29, 2004) (three judge panel of federal court of appeals cannot, absent exceptional circumstances (not present here) overrule prior Ninth Circuit decision), citing Benny v. U.S. Parole Comm' n, 295 F.3d 977, 983 (9th Cir. 2002) ("We are bound by decisions of prior panels unless an en banc decision, Supreme Court decision or subsequent legislation undermines those decisions.")
IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES - JUDICIAL REVIEW LIMITATIONS
Lenni B. Benson, Back to the Future: Congress Attacks the Right to Judicial Review of Immigration Proceedings, 29 Conn. L. Rev. 1411 (1997); Hiroshi Motomura, Judicial Review in Immigration Cases After AADC: Lessons from Civil Procedure, 14 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 385 (2000).
