Junior Ricketts v. Atty Gen USA, 955 F.3d 348

Junior Ricketts, convicted of multiple felonies, repeatedly asserted he is a U.S. citizen (born in Brooklyn as Paul Milton Miles) to avoid removal; the government maintains he is Jamaican.
Ricketts was removed from the U.S., later returned (2003), and DHS reinstated his order of removal (2005).
He obtained a Jamaican report supporting his citizenship claim and filed BIA motions to reopen and to reconsider; the BIA dismissed both, citing the post-departure bar (8 C.F.R. §1003.2(d)).
The Third Circuit transferred factual resolution of the citizenship dispute to the Eastern District of New York; the EDNY found Ricketts’s evidence not credible and that the person born as Paul Milton Miles is a different individual.
The Second Circuit affirmed the EDNY ruling, foreclosing Ricketts’s citizenship claim; the Third Circuit concluded remanding to the BIA would be futile and denied the petition for review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court must remand to the BIA after the BIA dismissed motions under the post-departure bar, or may deny review when remand would be futile	Ricketts: remand required; remand-futility is rare and shouldn’t be applied to curtail BIA jurisdiction	Government: remand would be futile because the BIA cannot grant relief—the citizenship claim has been conclusively rejected by federal courts	Court: remand-futility doctrine applies in immigration cases; remand would be futile here, so petition denied without remand
Whether Ricketts may obtain relief from removal based on his citizenship claim despite the EDNY and Second Circuit determinations	Ricketts: presented records and Jamaican report asserting U.S. birth and identity as Paul Milton Miles	Government: EDNY and the Second Circuit conclusively determined he is not a U.S. citizen; doctrine of preclusion and binding effect on the BIA bar relief	Court: Ricketts’s citizenship claim is foreclosed; the BIA is bound and claim/issue preclusion apply, so relief cannot be granted

S.E.C. v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (1943) (establishes limits on reviewing agency action and when remand is required)
NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759 (1969) (Chenery does not mandate repeated remands when outcome is inevitable)
George Hyman Const. Co. v. Brooks, 963 F.2d 1532 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (describes remand-futility exception where only one disposition is possible)
Nbaye v. Attorney General, 665 F.3d 57 (3d Cir. 2011) (Third Circuit recognized remand-futility can apply in immigration contexts)
Baez-Sanchez v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1033 (7th Cir. 2020) (once a court of appeals decides an issue, the BIA must implement that conclusion)
Duvall v. Attorney Gen., 436 F.3d 382 (3d Cir. 2006) (standards for collateral estoppel/issue preclusion)
Duhaney v. Attorney Gen., 621 F.3d 340 (3d Cir. 2010) (res judicata/claim preclusion principles)
Santana v. Holder, 731 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2013) (case criticizing use of the post-departure bar to abrogate statutory right to move to reopen)