Andre Juste v. Secretary United States Depart

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 17-1874
___________
ANDRE JUSTE;
FRANTZ MELON, Plaintiff Father
v.
SECRETARY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE;
SECRETARY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Andre Juste,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No 2-17-cv-00327)
District Judge: Honorable Cathy Bissoon
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
August 16, 2017
Before: RESTREPO, SCIRICA and FISHER, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 18, 2017)
___________
OPINION *
___________
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
PER CURIAM
The appellant, Andre Juste, is a Haitian citizen who was placed in removal
proceedings in 2015 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) and 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) and
(II). 1 In March 2017, while the removal proceedings were pending, Juste commenced
this pro se action in the District Court seeking a declaration of citizenship pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1503. Juste claimed that in 1996, when he was under the age of 18, he gained
derivative citizenship through his legal guardian, Franz Melon. 2 The District Court
determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Juste’s citizenship claim and dismissed
the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Juste now appeals from the District
Court’s order. 3
We will affirm. Juste was required to raise his citizenship claim through
administrative channels before turning to the District Court. A person may seek proof of
citizenship by filing with USCIS a Form N-600, Application for Citizenship, pursuant to
1
It appears that, at the time of this writing, Juste’s removal proceedings remain pending.
It is unclear from the record before us whether he raised his derivative-citizenship claim
before the agency, but to the extent he did so without success, he may obtain judicial
review of the agency’s ruling in the appropriate Court of Appeals through 8 U.S.C. §
1252. See Ortega v. Holder 592 F.3d 738, 743-44 (7th Cir. 2010).
2
Alien children of United States-born or naturalized parents can, under certain
conditions, obtain derivative citizenship through 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a), the former
derivative-citizenship provision, or the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, § 1431, which
repealed and broadened the qualifications for derivative citizenship.
3
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
2
Immigration & Nationality Act §§ 301, 309, 320, and/or 321. If the application is denied,
he must timely appeal to the Administrative Appeals Office. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.3(a)(1)(i)-(iv). If the Appeals Office denies his appeal, he may then bring a
declaratory judgment action under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a) challenging
the adverse administrative action.
Juste does not contend—and nothing in the record otherwise suggests—that he
sought to establish his citizenship with USCIS before commencing this declaratory
judgment action in the District Court. In light of Juste’s failure to exhaust his
administrative remedies, the District Court correctly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction
to consider the case, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Alleyne v. Immigration & Naturalization
Serv., 879 F.2d 1177, 1182 (3d Cir. 1989), and properly dismissed it pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
We have considered Juste’s remaining arguments and conclude that they are
meritless. Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment. 4
4
The motion for an extension of time to file a reply brief and appendix is denied.
3