Lawal v. Atty Gen USA , 89 F. App'x 774 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2004 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    2-3-2004
    Lawal v. Atty Gen USA
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 02-2354
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
    Recommended Citation
    "Lawal v. Atty Gen USA" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 1033.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/1033
    This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
    NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    No. 02-2354
    OLUKOLADE LAWAL,
    Petitioner
    v.
    JOHN ASHCROFT,
    Attorney General of the United States,
    Respondent
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. Civil Nos. 00-cv-2264, 02-cv-0265)
    District Judge: Honorable Richard P. Conaboy
    Argued
    January 15, 2004
    Before: SLOVITER, RENDELL and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.
    (Filed February 3, 2004)
    1
    TODD R. GEREMIA, ESQ.1 (Argued)
    Jones Day
    222 East 41st Street
    New York, New York 10017-6702
    Attorney for Petitioner
    PETER D. KEISLER, ESQ.
    Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division
    LINDA S. WERNERY, ESQ.
    Senior Litigation Counsel
    Office of Immigration Litigation
    SUSAN C. LYNCH, ESQ. (Argued)
    Attorney
    U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division
    P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station
    Washington, D.C. 20044
    Attorneys for Respondent
    OPINION OF THE COURT
    ALDISERT, Circuit Judge.
    This appeal requires us to decide whether the district court erred in denying
    Olukolade Lawal’s three consolidated petitions for habeas corpus. Lawal contends that
    the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”)2 illegally held him in custody as
    1
    The court is appreciative of the willingness of Mr. Geremia and his law firm,
    Jones Day, to undertake representation in this case on a pro bono basis.
    2
    The INS is now known as the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services
    within the Department of Homeland Security. See Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub.
    L. No. 107-296, § 451, 
    116 Stat. 2135
    , 2195 (2002) (codified at 
    6 U.S.C. § 271
     (Supp.
    2003)). Because the operative events in this case took place before the name change, INS
    is used here.
    2
    a removable alien even though he had achieved derivative citizenship under either the
    Child Citizenship Act of 2000 (“CCA”), 
    8 U.S.C. § 1431
    , or the former Section 321 of
    the Immigration and Nationality Act, 
    8 U.S.C. § 1432
     (1988) (repealed 2000). We will
    affirm.
    I.
    Because we write exclusively for the benefit of the parties, who are familiar with
    the facts and the proceedings below, our discussion of the background will be limited.
    Lawal is a 30-year-old native of Nigeria who was admitted to the United States as a
    lawful permanent resident in 1987. Lawal moved to the United States to live with his
    father, who married a United States citizen in 1979 and was naturalized in 1989, and his
    stepmother. Lawal’s parents were never married.
    On December 15, 1997, Lawal was convicted in the state of New York for selling
    cocaine. As a result of this conviction, the INS initiated deportation proceedings. See 
    8 U.S.C. §§ 1227
    (a)(2)(A)(iii) and 1101(a)(43)(B). Lawal contends that he is not subject
    to removal notwithstanding the conviction because he is a citizen.
    II.
    The district court construed Lawal’s derivative citizenship arguments in the
    habeas petitions as an appeal from the August 9, 2001 final order of deportation by the
    Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). Noting Lawal’s 1997 New York conviction for
    the criminal sale of a controlled substance, the district court transferred Lawal’s
    3
    challenge of the final order of deportation to us. See 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (a)(2)(C) (“no court
    shall have jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who is
    removable by reason of having committed a criminal offense covered in [
    8 U.S.C. § 1227
    (a)(2)(A)(iii), (B)]”); Valansi v. Ashcroft, 
    278 F.3d 203
    , 207 (3d Cir. 2002).
    We will not accept jurisdiction under the district court’s transfer order. Under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1631
    , a court may transfer a case to “any other such court in which the action or
    appeal could have been brought at the time it was filed or noticed. . . .” None of Lawal’s
    habeas petitions – dated December 26, 2000, April 10, 2001 and February 19, 2002 –
    was filed in the district court within 30 days of the BIA’s final order of removal on
    August 9, 2001. See 
    8 USC § 1252
    (b)(1) (setting a 30-day deadline for petitions for
    review of final orders of removal). Accordingly, we hold that the transfer to us was
    inappropriate.
    III.
    Assuming arguendo that it had jurisdiction to consider the habeas petitions even if
    it could not review the final order of removal, the district court denied Lawal’s three
    consolidated habeas petitions. The district court properly exercised its jurisdiction to
    consider the consolidated petitions. See Chmakov v. Blackman, 
    266 F.3d 210
    , 213 (3d
    Cir. 2001) (“district courts retain jurisdiction to hear habeas petitions filed by aliens
    subject to deportation for having committed certain criminal offenses”).
    We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. §§ 1291
     and 2253(a) to
    4
    review the district court’s final order denying the petitions. “We exercise plenary review
    over the District Court’s legal conclusions in a habeas proceeding. . . .” Werts v.
    Vaughn, 
    228 F.3d 178
    , 191 (3d Cir. 2000).
    IV.
    We agree with the district court that the CCA does not apply retroactively to grant
    derivative citizenship to Lawal. The CCA applies only to individuals born outside of the
    United States who satisfy several conditions, including a requirement that the individual
    be “under the age of eighteen years” on the statute’s effective date, February 27, 2001.
    See 
    8 U.S.C. § 1431
    (a); Child Citizenship Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-395, § 104, 
    114 Stat. 1631
    , 1633 (2000); Drakes v. Ashcroft, 
    323 F.3d 189
    , 191 (2d Cir. 2003); United
    States v. Arbelo, 
    288 F.3d 1262
    , 1263 (11th Cir. 2002); Hughes v. Ashcroft, 
    255 F.3d 752
    , 759-760 (9th Cir. 2001); Nehme v. INS, 
    252 F.3d 415
    , 431 (5th Cir. 2001). Lawal,
    who was born on December 30, 1973, was 27 years old on the day the CCA became
    effective. Accordingly, the CCA’s automatic citizenship provisions do not apply to him.
    V.
    We now turn to Lawal’s contention that he gained citizenship under the former
    Section 321 of the Immigration and Nationality Act by virtue of the naturalization of his
    father in 1989. The statute in effect at the time Lawal’s father was naturalized provided
    in relevant part:
    (a) A child born outside of the United States of alien parents . . . becomes a
    citizen of the United States upon fulfillment of the following conditions:
    5
    ....
    (3) The naturalization of the parent having legal custody of
    the child when there has been a legal separation of the parents
    or the naturalization of the mother if the child was born out of
    wedlock and the paternity of the child has not been
    established by legitimation. . . .
    
    8 U.S.C. § 1432
     (1988) (repealed 2000).
    As acknowledged by the district court, the immigration judge who initially
    determined that Lawal met the requirements for derivative citizenship noted that the
    former Section 321 left a gap for alien children born out of wedlock who sought to
    obtain citizenship by virtue of their father’s naturalization. Lawal further contends that
    we should interpret the former Section 321 to avoid what he views as the constitutional
    problem posed by an unjustified gender-based classification.
    Lawal recognizes, however, and we emphasize here, that Lawal has not asked us
    to declare the former Section 321 unconstitutional as a violation of the Equal Protection
    Clause. We further emphasize that Congress closed the gap in the former Section 321
    and eliminated any suggestion of gender-based classification when it adopted the CCA.
    See 
    8 U.S.C. § 1431
    .
    The district court held that Lawal did not satisfy the conditions for derivative
    citizenship in the former Section 321 because, even though Lawal was in the legal
    custody of his father at the time of his father’s naturalization, Lawal’s parents were never
    married and thus could not have undergone a “legal separation.” Lawal urges us to adopt
    the view that Lawal’s parents are legally separated precisely because they were never
    6
    married. This argument, however, stretches the meaning of “legal separation” too far.
    We start with “the language employed by Congress . . . and we assume that the
    legislative purpose is expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used.” INS v.
    Phinpathya, 
    464 U.S. 183
    , 189 (1984) (internal quotations and citations omitted). It is
    clear to us that Congress intended the term “legal separation” in the former Section
    321(a)(3) to presume the preexistence of a legally binding marriage. In defining “legal
    separation,” Black’s Law Dictionary advises us to “[s]ee SEPARATION (1).” Black’s
    Law Dictionary 907 (7th ed. 1999). “[S]eparation. 1.” is described as “[a]n arrangement
    whereby a husband and wife live apart from each other while remaining married, either
    by mutual consent or by judicial decree[.]” Id. at 1369. See also Nehme, 
    252 F.3d at 426
     (“in the United States, the term ‘legal separation’ is uniformly understood to mean
    judicial separation”) (emphasis in original); Wedderburn v. INS, 
    215 F.3d 795
    , 799 (7th
    Cir. 2000) (“it is impossible to see how people who have never been joined can be
    separated”).
    If the term “legal separation” included situations in which there had been no
    marriage, the term would be superfluous. See 
    id.
     (noting that the unmarried parent of a
    child seeking citizenship was “‘legally separated’ from more than six billion people:
    everyone on the planet other than his wife”). The view urged on us by Lawal would
    “defy the axiom of statutory construction that whenever possible each word in a statutory
    provision is to be given meaning and not to be treated as surplusage.” Acceptance Ins.
    7
    Co. v. Sloan, 
    263 F.3d 278
    , 283 (3d Cir. 2001) (internal quotations and citations
    omitted).
    The district court also rejected Lawal’s argument that he could have gained
    citizenship by virtue of his father’s naturalization under the provision of the former
    Section 321(a)(3) covering “the naturalization of the mother if the child was born out of
    wedlock and the paternity of the child has not been established by legitimation.” 
    8 U.S.C. § 1432
    (a)(3) (1988) (repealed 2000). On its face, this provision clearly does not
    include situations, such as that of Lawal, in which the naturalized custodial parent is the
    father rather than the mother. Still, Lawal contends that the provision’s purported
    unjustified gender-based classification requires us to read the statute so as to grant
    derivative citizenship to Lawal. This we will not do.
    Again, we emphasize that our task is not to determine the constitutionality of the
    former Section 321 in light of the Equal Protection Clause. We must determine only
    whether Congress, “[i]n the exercise of its broad power over naturalization and
    immigration,” Mathews v. Diaz, 
    426 U.S. 67
    , 79-80 (1976); see also Miller v. Albright,
    
    523 U.S. 420
    , 434 n.11 (1998), intended the former Section 321 to apply to someone in
    Lawal’s situation. In reviewing the choices made by Congress in this area, we are
    mindful that “such decisions are frequently of a character more appropriate to either the
    Legislature or the Executive than to the Judiciary.” Mathews, 
    426 U.S. at 81
    .
    The former Section 321 is based on the general requirement that for a child born
    8
    outside the United States to acquire citizenship, both parents must naturalize. 
    8 USC § 1432
    (a)(3) (1988) (repealed 2000). In carving out certain limited exceptions to prevent
    hardship and preserve the family unit, Congress did not permit either an unwed mother or
    an unwed father alone to transmit citizenship to a legitimated child when the other parent
    was still living. It is true that the former Section 321 allows unwed mothers to transmit
    citizenship to their children for whom paternity has not been legitimated but the statute
    does not have a similar provision for unwed fathers. This is “neither surprising nor
    troublesome from a constitutional perspective” because “[f]athers and mothers are not
    similarly situated with regard to the proof of biological parenthood.” Nguyen v. INS,
    
    533 U.S. 53
    , 63 (2001).
    Ultimately, we need not determine the level of scrutiny that would apply to a
    review of the former Section 321’s constitutionality in an equal protection case. Nor do
    we need to determine whether the distinction between unmarried mothers and unmarried
    fathers in the former Section 321(a)(3) “is substantially related to important
    governmental objectives.” Miller, 
    523 U.S. at
    434 n.11 (discussing the gender
    distinction in 
    8 U.S.C. § 1409
    , the out-of-wedlock children citizenship provision of the
    Immigration and Nationality Act). We are convinced that the canon of construction
    urged on us by Lawal – that we must read the former Section 321 “to avoid serious
    constitutional problems,” Sandoval v. Reno, 
    166 F.3d 225
    , 237 (3d Cir. 1999) – does not
    require us to turn the former Section 321 on its head. By its terms, the statute does not
    9
    apply to Lawal.
    We have considered all of the arguments advanced by the parties and conclude
    that no further discussion is necessary. We conclude that the district court did not err in
    holding that Lawal did not gain derivative citizenship under either the CCA or the former
    Section 321(a)(3). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court denying Lawal’s three
    consolidated habeas corpus petitions will be affirmed.
    TO THE CLERK:
    Please file the foregoing opinion.
    s/Ruggero J. Aldisert
    Circuit Judge
    DATED:        February 3, 2004
    10