Rodrigue Laventure, A018 098 964 (BIA Aug. 2, 2013)

8/22/2019 Rodrigue Laventure, A018 098 964 (BIA Aug. 2, 2013)

1/15

Bernard, P. Helder Esq195-53 NW 2nd Avenue Ste 209Miami FL 33169-0000

Name: LAVENTURE RODRIGUE

Depe use

Executive Oce r Immigraon Revew

Board ofImigrton AppelsOce of the Cek

50 l.esbrg Pike, Sit 2000Fa Crc1 rgini 220 /

HS/ICE Oice of Chef Counsel BAL31 Hopkns Plaza Room 1600Baltimore MD 21201

A 018098964

Date of this notice 8/2/2013

csed s a cpy of he Board's decsn and der n he abve-eenced case.

clsre

b E

Scerely,

DO cDnna Car

Che Cerk

Cite as: Rodrigue Laventure, A018 098 964 (BIA Aug. 2, 2013)


2/15

AENTURE RODRIGUEA018-098-964WORCESTER COUNTY JAI5022 JOYNER ROADSNOW HI MD 21863

Name AENTURE RODRIGUE

U Dertet uste

Execue Oce r mmgron Reew

oad of aton AealsOce of the Clek

50 7 Lesug Pik uite 000a C Vgina 20

HS/ICE Oie of Chief Counsel - BAL31 Hopkins Plaza Room 1600Baltimore MD 21201

A 018098964

Date of this notie 8/2/2013

Encoed cop o he ord decon n he boererenced ce Th cop bengproded o ou coue Your oe or repreene h been eed wh hdecon purun o CFR 1292() he ched decon order h ou beroed om he Uned Se or m n mmgron Judge decon ordeng h oube remoed n peon r ree o he ched decon u be led wh nd receedb he pprop cou o ppel hn d o he de o he decon

ncloure

b E

Sncer

Dc cDonn CrCh Cerk

iliame

k



3/15

U.S. pm JuExeGutive Oce r Immigration Revew

Dciso of te Board ofmmiato Appeals

. Fals Chuc, Virginia

Fil: 8 098 964 - Baltimo M

In : RORIGE LAVER

IN RMOAL PROEEING

APPEAL

at:

O BEALF OF REPOE P l Ba, Esi

O BEAF OF : ai E onstonnio Atto

AU 2 2013

ORER: h Boa as withot opinion t st of cision bow cision bow is t t na anc tmnation See 8 FR 003.)4 ).

FOR E BOAR



4/15

I

TED STATES DEPTMENT OF JUSTCEEXEC' OFFCE FOR MMGRATON REVEW

GTON COT31 HOPKNS PAZA ROOM 440

BAMORE, M 21201

LAW OFFCE OF EIZET U AWRENCE, LCWRENCE EZAET UOUWAPO200 EAST ENGTON STREET STE 71BALTMORE, MD 2202

Date: Mar 13 2013

File A-098-964

n the Matter of

AVENTURE RODRGE

Attached is a copy of the written decision of the mmigration Judge.This decision is final uness an appea is taken to the Board ofmmigration Appeals. The encosed copies of FOR M EOR 26,Notice of Appea and FORM EOR 27, Notice of Entry as Attorney orRepresentative properly executed must be file d with the Board ofmmigration Appeals on or beforeThe appeal must be accompanied by proof of paid fee ($11000)

Encosed is a copy of the oral decision

Encosed is a transcript of the testimony of record

You are granted until to submt a briefto this office in support of your appeal

Opposing counsel is granted until to submit a, brief in opposition to the appeaJ- Enclosed is a copy of the order/decision of the mmgration udgeAl papers fied with the Court shal be accompanied by proof

of service upon opposing counse

Sincerely

Immigrationerkcc S E OFFCE OF EF CO31 OS PA 6 FOORBALTMORE MD 2200000

U


5/15

(

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICEEXECUIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW

UNITED STAES IMMIGRA Ti ON COURTBALTIMORE, MARYLAN

HE MATTER OF IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

LA ENTURE, Rodrgue

RESPONDENT

CHARGE:

APPLICATIONS

A#

ction 237a)2)A)iii) of t of t Immiation an ationalit

Act uAct o IA) as amn, in ta, at an tm aaission ou av bn convict of an aavat flon asn in sction 0a)43)G) of t Act a law atin to at ons incuin cipt of ston popt) o buaons wic t t of impisonmnt at last a wasipos

ction 237a)2)A)ii) of t mmiation an ationalit Act asamn, in tat, at an ti a amission ou av bnconvict of two cis invovin moa tupitu not aisin outof a sin scm of cimina isconuct

Divativ itiznsip claim

APPEARANCES

ON BEHALF OF ESPONDENTElizabt Anu awnc Esq

ON BEHALF OF THE DHSJosp Elow Esq

200 E Linton tt uit 7Baltio Malan 2202

Assistant if ounsl3 opkins Plaza, 6t Foo

Batimo alan 2202


6/15

I Statement of the Case

NTER DECISON

he responden is a naive of Haii, bo June 23, 194 He was admied o he Unied

Saes ound Sepember 4, 1968 See Exhibi 1 On ove!ber 20, 202, he Deparmen of

Homeland Secuy (DHS") placed him ino removal poceedigs ough he issuance of a

Noice o ppear (N") d

The NT alleges ha (1) he responden is no a ciizen or naional o he Unied Saes;

(2) he responden is a naive and ciizen of aii; (3) he responden was admied o he Unied

Saes a or nea San Juan, Puero Ro on or abou Sepember 4, 1968 as a S lawl

peranen residen (4) he responden was, on Februay 29, 1996, conviced in he Circui Cour

[a alimore Ciy, Myland r he oense o urgay Fis Degree in vioaion o ricle 27

Secion 29 nnoaed Code o Maryland; () r his oense, he responden was senenced o

wo yers incaceraion; (6) he responden was, on May 24, 2001, conviced in he Circui

Cour [a alimore Ciy, Mryland r he oense of he; ess han $00, in violaion of

Aicle 27 Secion 340 nnoaed Code of Mayland; and (7) hese cimes did no arise ou of a

single scheme o crimnal misonduc d The NT, herere, charges him wih removabiiy

pursuan o IN 237(a)(2)()(iii) d 237(a)(2)()(ii) d

he December 19, 2012 heaing, he responden, hrough counsel, admied allegaions

2-7, bu onesed allegaion 1 His counsel asered ha he responden could be a Unied Saes

ciizen because he derived ciizenship om his moher, a nauralized Unied Saes ciizen, and if

o, he ou no be emove owever, ounsel iniae ha she needed ime o rher review

he recor. cordingly, he Cour oninued he case

During he Jnuary 23, 2013 hearing, he responden, hough counsel, rher assered

ha he derived ciizenship via his moher e aknowledged ha he was admie ino he

2


7/15

(

Unted States n 1968 Upon a request om DHS the Court reset another heng date to allow

the goveent to rther revew the record.

At e February 6 203 hearng DHS acknowedged that t receved a copy o the

respondent's mother's Unted States passport and submtted that t was not contestng whether

she was naturalzed Furthermore DHS noted that the exstence o the respondent's mothers

Unted States ctzenshp alone was not enough to address the respondent's dervatve ctzenshp

clam Accordngly, the Court peted the goveent to e a bre on the respondents

dervatve ctzenshp clam and the respondent ed a response to the sae

II Evdence resented

he owng exhbts were receved by the Court but have not been admted nto evdence

Exhbt

Notce to Appear dated November 20 202

Exhbt

DHS Bre on Dervatve Ctzenshp receved February 3 2013

Exht

Respondents Bre n Support o Dervatve Ctzenshp receved February 1 2013

ab 1

o Tab Copy o the respondent's mother's nted States passport

III Statement Law and Findings f the Curthe Cort has consdered the entre record carelly ncludng the arguments o both

partes the evdence o record and the applcabe law herere the Court's decson now

llow or the llowng reason he out nds that the respondent ha not atsed hs

burden to prove that he derved ctzenshp om hs mother. See Mater ofA-M- 7 &N Dec 332

(BA 196) herere the respondent has been propery placed nto removal proceedngs

3


8/15

t s well settled that when an alen s bo aboad but clas Unted States ctzenshp

the alen beas the bden of poof to eonstate such ctzenshp

Hee the ecod s clea that the esponent was bo n Hat on une 23 194 and that

hs paents wee also Hatan See Exhbt 1 see also Exhbt 2 and 3 He was also ated nto

the Unted States as a lawl peanent esdent on Septebe 4 1968 See Exhbt 1 The

pates do not contest whethe the esponent's othe was a natualzed Unted States ctzen as

thee s a copy of the othes Unte States passpot n the ecod See Exhbt 3 Tab 1

Futheoe both pates agee that he elevant statute at ssue s e 321(a) 8 USC

432(a), epealed by the Chld Ctenshp ct of 2000 (CC") because the espondent tue

eghteen-yeas-old bee the CC took eect The elevant statutoy language s as llows

(a) a chl bo outse of the Unte States of alen paents o o an alenpaent and a ctzen paent who has subsequently lost ctzenshp of theUnte States becoes a cten of the Unted States upon lllent ofthe llowng condtons

The natualzaton of both paents o(2) he natualzaton of the suvvng paent f one of the paents s eceased

o(3) The natualzaton of the paent havng legal custody of the chl whenthee has been a legal sepaaton of the paents o e natualzaton of theothe f the chld was bon out o wedlock and the patenty of the chl hasnot been establshe by legtaton ai(4) Such natualzaton takes place whle sad chld s une the age of 18yeas ad() Such chld s esng n the ned States pusuant to a lawful asson peanent esence at the te of the natualaton of the paent lastnatualzed unde clause (2) o (3) of ths subsecton o theeae begns toesde peanently n the Unte States whle unde the age of 18 yeas

Ephass added

1 Whle not entirely clea the record also seems to ndicate that the respondent's parens were maried when he wasb.2 The Cour recognizes that the respondents thers passpot demonsates that she was a nauraized United Statescitizen however, the Cour notes that sch evidence does not prove w she was nauralized ony that at somepint she beame a United Sates citizen

4


9/15

he espondent concedes tht subsectons nd (2) e not pplcble n thi

instnce See Exhibit 3 t p2. Howeve, the espondent's bie ssets tt subsections

3-5 do pply ccodingly the Cout wil dde these guments in tu

Respondent's motler a naturazed citizens n initl mte pe the st clue o subsection 3 the Cout note tht

thee is no dispute s to whethe the espondent' mothe ws ntulzed cten See

Exhibt 3 t 3 see also Exhibit 2 t 5 hee s lso no dipute tht the espondents

mothes now decesed howeve, the espondent submits tht hs mothe enteed e

United Sttes in 965 and ws ntulzed in 970 d s peviously noted, thee is

copy o the espondent's mothe's Unted Sttes psspot in the ecod, inditng tht

she ws nlied ctizen ot only doe this evidence not demontte whe she

ws ntulied, the espondent iled to poduce any othe evidence demontting

when hs mothe w nulized

Legal custodvNext, the espondent submt hs mothe hd ll legl custody o hm becue

hs the led divoce in Ht See Exhibit 3 t 3 he espondent sset tht

alough he, his the nd ibling enteed the Unted Sttes on the sme dy to jon his

mothe in 96 the mothe nd the lte developed mitl pobem, eulting in the

the levng the mothe to etu to Ht Id. he espondent the contends tht

co n ti gnted his the divoce decee nd tht pusunt to the pincple o

omty, such decee hould eeve at nd cedit in th ntne Id. Yet te

3 h s no dspu ha p subscon 5 of h sau h spondn nd h Und Sas a uen-yasod o Spmb4, 1968 a lawl pn sdn m 321 (a)(5)4 Th Cou nos ha hs sc, od h spondn o hav a succssl dvav czshp clah mus sas subscos 3 4 and 5 hs sauoy qumns a conjucv n nau and no dsjuncv ssubscons 1 and 32l{a)

5


10/15

rvant at of subsction 3 clarl indicats that a chid drivs citiznshi whn h

naturaiaion of th arnt having lgal cusod of th child [occurs whn hr has

bn alegal separation of h rnts . " Formr A 32a)3) mhasis addd)

r h rsondnt h il to rovid any roof of his arnts' lgal

saraion or divorc and h vn concds tha h] dos no hav a co of his

nt's divorc dcr" See Ehbit 3 at 3 urthor r is no vidnc of a

gal sraion. ga saration has bn dnd as a rma judicial altraion of

th marial raionshi" Nehme v INS 252 3d 45 425-26 5t ir 200);

Domsic raions law in h Unitd tas tats lga saration' as th judicial

susnsion or dissolution of a maiag" Wedderburn v. INS, 25 F.3d 795 799 7th

ir. 2000). Thr is no vidnc tha thr was a judicial alration or susnsion o h

rsondns arnts' marriag as mrl abanoning th il alon dos not

constiu a dissouion or judicia arital alraion. hrr, t rsondn id o

saisf this rong nd canno onstra his driv ciiznshi tough his mohr

Rspondnt w ndigtn-vasodWhi th out ns that th rsondnt id to satisf h armntiond

caus th ourt also ns ha h rsondnt cannot monsa th urth

subsction tha his mothrs aturalization ook lac whi h was ndr eighn

arsold See ormr A 32a)4) Outsi of mr argumt th rsondnt has

rovidd no roof as to whn hs mothr was nauraid much ss ha such

naturaliaion occurred when he was er eighenyearso as manae y he

stau 4) [s]uch naturaliaion aks lac whi sai child is undr th ag of

yars" Id h rsondn mr osis ha h and his brthr atnd thir mohr's

6


11/15

nauraliion cmon in 970 whn h was sin-as-old S Ehibi 3 a 3

urhrmo h spondns mohs passpo was issud in 996 appoimal

wo as a h spondns 954 bih a Se Eibi 3 Tab Thus th

spondn was wll bond ighnasold whn his pspor w issud

Th h spondn has ild o pov ha h divd ciinship hogh his

moh

Rspodt rsddpursuat to a lawfuladmsoTh is no dispu ha p m A 32a)5) ha h spondn nd h

Unid as a urn-s-old on pmb 4 96 as a lawl prmann sidn

Concluson

Th spondn h ild o sais h applicabl sauoy quimns o sablish his

divaiv ciiznship claim has onl pod a cop of his mohs Unid as passpo

wih a 996 issuanc da which fails o indica whn sh was naualizd and whh h was

und ighnas-old a h im. thmo th is no oo ha his ans w v

lgall spaad o divocd and h spondn has acknowldgd h lack of such poof

Accodingl h has ild o m his budn of poo o sablish his divaiv ciinship

claim Th h spondn has bn popl placd ino moval pocdings

.-c? r3Da

7

uQQ,-'V ;oslandni Sas mmgaion galimo Maland


12/15

UNTED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICEEXECUTIVE OFFICE OR MMGRATON REVIEW

UNITED STATES MMIGATION COUR

BALTIMOE, MAYAND

ile: A018-098964

In the Matter of

March 13, 203

RODGUE AVENTUE)))

)

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDNGS

RESPONDENT

CHAGES: The charges are a violaon of Secon 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) and237(a)(2)(A)() of the Immgraton and Naonalty Act

APPCATIONS There s no application for relef before the Cou.

ON BEHAF OF ESPONDENT EIZABET WENCE

ON BEHA O S: CARRE E OHNSTON

ORA DECSON OF THE IMMIGATION UDGE

The responden s a citizen and national of Ha e was placed in

remova proceedngs n a Notce o Appear dated November 20, 2012 It was fled with

the mmgraon Cou

The respondent appeared at maser calendar and aded the allegaons

te otce t Apear e Goverment bmed convction documents and te

Cou finds tha the Government has shown by clear and convncing evidence based on

he admisson of the responden and based on he convicon documents tha te


13/15

responden is eovabe as chaged

The espondent ased a qestion thogh conse o havng dervave

claim o US czenship The docents wee led whch e Co has consideed

and the Co enered a wrien decison oday which is ncoporaed by reerence

inding that the esponden has not met his brden o poo o showing derivave

citizenshp

Consel o respondent was asked i espondent had any relie that he

wold be seekng ohe than a clam o devaive cizenship The espondent's conse

indicated tha he does not bt he s connng to prse proo that he has derivave

US ctzenship he Co declined to gran a he connance on tha isse and

based pon the are o he espondent o e any appicaton or rele and based pon

the inding at the espondent s a citizen or natona o Hai and no a citien and

national o the Uned States The espondent is odered reoved om the United

Saes o violating he o sections o he graton and Naonay Ac aw as

indcatedORER

IS HREBY ORR ha the espondent be eoved om e

United Staes to Hat

signature

Pese see te nextpage fo eetoni

AV WCROSANmgaon Jdge

March


14/15

/Isl/

migraton Judge DAVID W.CROSLAND

crosand on May 15, 2013 a 1:44 PM GT

AlB-098964 3

(

March 13, 2013


15/15

CERTICATE PAGE

herey cei that he aached proceeding eore UDGE DAVIDWCROSAND in he mater o

RODRIGUE LAVENTURE

A018098964

BATIMORE MARYAND

was hed as heren appears and tha ths s he orginal transcrp theeo or he e o

the Executive Oce r mmigraon Revew

ESSICA NEDA (Transcrier)

DEOSITON SERVCES nc2

MAY 4 203

(Completon Dae)

Documents

Rodrigue Laventure, A018 098 964 (BIA Aug. 2, 2013)