Case Information
*1 11 ‐ 1252 ‐ ag Sessions
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 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 GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 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 NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At stated term of United States of Second Circuit, Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, Foley Square, City New York, on th day December, two thousand seventeen.
PRESENT: RAYMOND LOHIER, JR.,
SUSAN L. CARNEY,
Circuit Judges,
JED S. RAKOFF,
District Judge .*
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
LUIS RAMON MORALES SANTANA, AKA
LUIS MORALES,
Petitioner , No. ag
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent. **
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ * Judge Jed Rakoff, District Southern District sitting by designation. ** Pursuant Federal Rule Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Jefferson B. III automatically substituted former General Loretta E. Lynch as Respondent.
FOR PETITIONER: Stephen A. Broome, Jacob Waldman,
Ellyde Roko, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, NY. RESPONDENT: Stuart Delery, Acting Assistant General, Stephen Flynn,
Assistant Director, Kathryn M. McKinney, Imran R. Zaidi, Attorneys, Office Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department Justice, Washington, DC. On remand from Supreme Court.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION this petition for review Board Immigration (“BIA”) HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, DECREED that
Following our decision in Morales Lynch, F.3d (2d Cir.
2015), Government appealed Supreme Court. The Supreme affirmed judgment part and reversed in part, remanding case further proceedings. Santana, Ct. (2017). The while “[t]he gender based distinction infecting 1409(a) (c) . . . violates equal protection principle,” extending favorable treatment would convert § 1409(c)’s exception unwed mothers into main rule displacing *3 1409(a). Id. at 1700–01. “Section 1401(a)(7)’s longer physical presence requirement, applicable to a substantial majority children born abroad one parent one foreign citizen parent, therefore, must hold sway.” Id. 1702.
In view we agree with BIA’s determination under circumstances case, is not citizen. For foregoing reasons, COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk