Kenrick Cicero v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 511078287

Case: 09-60470

Document: 00511078287

Page: 1

Date Filed: 04/13/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-60470 S u m m a r y Calendar April 13, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

K E N R I C K CICERO, also known as Kenrick Albert Cicero, P e titio n e r v. E R IC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, R e sp on d en t

P e tit io n for Review of an Order of the B o a r d of Immigration Appeals B I A No. A035 205 085

B e fo r e KING, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* K e n r ic k Cicero petitions for review of the decision of the Board of I m m ig r a t io n Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge's fi n d in g that he did not obtain derivative citizenship as a result of his father's n a t u r a liz a t io n . A nationality claim is a question of law that we review de novo. M a r q u e z -M a r q u e z v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 548, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). "Petitioner has th e burden of proving that he qualifies for naturalization, and he must do so in t h e face of the Supreme Court's mandate that we resolve all doubts in favor of
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*

Case: 09-60470

Document: 00511078287 Page: 2 No. 09-60470

Date Filed: 04/13/2010

t h e United States and against those seeking citizenship." Bustamante-Barrera v . Gonzales, 447 F.3d 388, 394-95 (5th Cir. 2006). R e ly in g on the provisions of former 8 U.S.C. § 1432, Cicero argues that he w a s in the custody of his father in 1980 when his father became a naturalized c it iz e n . Former section 1432 requires in relevant part that the child of divorced p a r e n t s , such as Cicero, have been in the sole legal custody of the naturalized p a r e n t. See Bustamante-Barrera, 447 F.3d at 395-96. C ic e r o 's parents' divorce decree awarded custody of Cicero to his mother. A lt h o u g h Cicero argues that other evidence shows that his parents agreed that h e would be in his father's custody, there is no evidence that his father ever o b ta in e d the required sole legal custody of him. See Bustamante-Barrera, 447 F .3 d at 395-96; see also Nehme v. I.N.S., 252 F.3d 415, 426 (5th Cir. 2 0 0 1 )(in t e r p r e t in g phrase "legal separation" in the same statute). As Cicero has n o t shown that he was in the sole legal custody of his father, he has not shown th a t he obtained derivative citizenship under § 1432. See Bustamante-Barrera, 4 4 7 F.3d at 395-96. C i c e r o 's petition for review is DENIED. Cicero's motions for appointment o f counsel and for release on bond pending the disposition of his petition for r e v ie w also are DENIED.

2