See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(b)(9) & (d); 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e) (stripping judicial review of Defendants’ custody determinations); Johnson v. Whitehead, 647 F.3d 120, 124-25 (4th Cir. 2011) (citizenship claim arising in removal proceedings cannot be challenged by writ of habeas corpus but only by petition of review to the Court of Appeals pursuant to a removal order). 5 Case 1:14-cv-06459-JBW-VVP Document 28 Filed 06/10/15 Page 5 of 43 PageID #: 785 Defendants’ argument throughout the administrative proceedings was that Matter of Hines (issued June 4, 2008) could be applied retroactively to Plaintiff; thus, effectively reaching back to strip Plaintiff of his citizen status. This position ignored that Plaintiff had derived U.S. citizenship five years earlier on September 17, 2002 under clearly established legal precedent (Matter of Rodriguez-Tejedor and Matter of Clahar).

Here, when reviewing plaintiff’s underlying immigration appeal, the Second Circuit “remain[ed] unsure as to the precise definition the BIA has adopted for determining whether a ‘child’ has been ‘legitimated’ under the law of a particular jurisdiction for purposes of 37 8 U.S.C. § 1101(c)(1).” Watson v. Holder, 643 F.3d 367, 370 (2d Cir. 2011) (discussing BIA’s application of Matter of Clahar, 18 I. & N. Dec. 1 (BIA 1981) rather than Matter of Hines, 24 I. & N. Dec. 544 (BIA 2008)). Upon remand, the BIA held that Matter of Hines is limited to derivation claims under the former Section 320(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1431(a).