Coulbourne v. Holder

Second Circuit

Coulbourne v. Holder

441 F. App'x 815

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 19, 2011

Docket11-240-ag

StatusUnpublished

This text of 441 F. App'x 815 (Coulbourne v. Holder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coulbourne v. Holder, 441 F. App'x 815 (2d Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Ryan Damion Coulbourne, a native and citizen of Jamaica, seeks review of a January 18, 2011, order of the BIA dismissing his claim of derivative United States citizenship. In re Ryan Damion Coulbourne, No. A041 457 839 (B.I.A. Jan. 18, 2011). The BIA issued its decision and order on remand from this Court, which granted Coulbourne’s previous petition for review. See Coulbourne v. Holder, 372 Fed.Appx. 156 (2d Cir.2010) (unpublished summary order).

Coulbourne argues that the BIA erred by concluding first that it does not have the power to grant derivative citizenship nunc pro tunc and second, that even if it had such authority, nunc pro tunc relief was unwarranted because he could not demonstrate that the government had engaged in affirmative misconduct. Finally, he contends that independent of the agency, this Court has the authority to grant derivative citizenship nunc pro tunc. We need not decide here whether we or the BIA have the equitable authority to grant such relief because, like the BIA, we conclude that Coulbourne has not presented evidence that the agency’s delay in processing his father’s naturalization application amounts to legal error. Accordingly, the BIA did not err in concluding that this would not be an appropriate case for the exercise of any such authority. See generally INS v. Miranda, 459 U.S. 14, 19, 103 S.Ct. 281, 74 L.Ed.2d 12 (1982) (per curiam); Iouri v. Ashcroft, 464 F.3d 172, 181-82 (2d Cir.2006); Edwards v. INS, 393 F.3d 299, 308-10 (2d Cir.2004). The petition for review is therefore DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Ryan Damion Coulbourne, a native and citizen of Jamaica, seeks review of a January 18, 2011, order of the BIA dismissing his claim of derivative United States citizenship. In re Ryan Damion Coulbourne, No. A041 457 839 (B.I.A. Jan. 18, 2011). The BIA issued its decision and order on remand from this Court, which granted Coulbourne’s previous petition for review. See Coulbourne v. Holder, 372 Fed.Appx. 156 (2d Cir.2010) (unpublished summary order).

Coulbourne argues that the BIA erred by concluding first that it does not have the power to grant derivative citizenship nunc pro tunc and second, that even if it had such authority, nunc pro tunc relief was unwarranted because he could not demonstrate that the government had engaged in affirmative misconduct. Finally, he contends that independent of the agency, this Court has the authority to grant derivative citizenship nunc pro tunc. We need not decide here whether we or the BIA have the equitable authority to grant such relief because, like the BIA, we conclude that Coulbourne has not presented evidence that the agency’s delay in processing his father’s naturalization application amounts to legal error. Accordingly, the BIA did not err in concluding that this would not be an appropriate case for the exercise of any such authority. See generally INS v. Miranda, 459 U.S. 14, 19, 103 S.Ct. 281, 74 L.Ed.2d 12 (1982) (per curiam); Iouri v. Ashcroft, 464 F.3d 172, 181-82 (2d Cir.2006); Edwards v. INS, 393 F.3d 299, 308-10 (2d Cir.2004). The petition for review is therefore DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

441 F. App'x 815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coulbourne-v-holder-ca2-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack