17-2530 Findley v. Barr BIA A206 223 376 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 14th day of October, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ ANDREW KEITH FINDLEY, AKA GILLY FINDLEY, AKA ROUNDHEAD FINDLEY Petitioner, v. 17-2530 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ For Petitioner: RAJEEV MUTTREJA (Conor Reardon, on the brief) Jones Day, New York, NY. For Respondent: YANAL H. YOUSEF Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is GRANTED and the petition is TRANSFERRED to the district court for further factfinding. Petitioner Andrew Keith Findley, an alleged native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions for review of a July 21, 2017 decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen his removal proceeding. In re Andrew Keith Findley, No. A 206 223 376 (B.I.A. Jul. 21, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. We ordinarily review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006), but when there is an issue of nationality, we review the claim de novo, 1 see Jaen v. Sessions, 899 F.3d 182, 185-86 (2d Cir. 2018); Gil v. Sessions, 851 F.3d 184, 186 (2d Cir. 2017). The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) addresses judicial review of nationality claims. “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.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5)(A). If, however, there is a “genuine issue of material fact” about the petitioner’s nationality, “the court shall transfer the proceeding to the district court . . . for a new hearing on the nationality claim and a decision on that claim.” Id. § 1252(b)(5)(B). In determining whether a petitioner has raised a material factual dispute, we apply “the same principles employed on a [Federal Rule of Civil ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals