U.S.

Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals Office ofthe Clerk

5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Clrurclr, Virginia 22041

NANCY E. MARTIN, ESQUIRE COLLINS & MARTIN, P.C. 55 TOWN LINE ROAD - THIRD FLOOR WETHERSFIELD, CT 06109

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - HAR P. O. Box 230217 Hartford, CT 06123-0217

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Name: COULBOURNE, RYAN DAMION

A041-457-839

Date of this notice: 1/18/2011

Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case. Sincerely,

Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Enclosure

Panel Members: Cole, Patricia A. Greer, Anne J. Pauley, Roger

Cite as: Ryan Damion Coulbourne, A041 457 839 (BIA Jan. 18, 2011)

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals Office ofthe Clerk

5107 /.eesb11rg Pike. S11ite 2000 Falls Ch11rch, Virginia 22041

COULBOURNE, RYAN DAMION 4250 FEDERAL DRIVE At/.041-457-839 BATAVIA, NY 14020

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - HAR P. 0. Box 230217 Hartford, CT 06123-0217

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Name: COULBOURNE, RYAN DAMION

A041-457-839

Date of this notice: 1/18/2011

Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision in the above-referenced case. This copy is being provided to you as a courtesy. Your attorney or representative has been served with this decision pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 1292.5(a). If the attached decision orders that you be removed from the United States or affirms an Immigration Judge's decision ordering that you be removed, any petition for review of the attached decision must be filed with and received by the appropriate court of appeals within 30 days of the date of the decision. Sincerelv.

DOrlJUL ct1/Vt.)
Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Enclosure

Panel Members: Cole, Patricia A. Greer, Anne J. Pauley, Roger

Cite as: Ryan Damion Coulbourne, A041 457 839 (BIA Jan. 18, 2011)

,,

Exec4tive Office for Immigration Review Falls Church, Virginia 22041

U.S. Department of Justice

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

File:

A04 l 457 839 - Hartford, CT

Date:

JAN 18 2011

In re: RYAN DAMION COULBOURNE a.k.a. Ryan Coulbourne IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS APPEAL

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF DHS:

Nancy E. Martin, Esquire

Leigh Mapplebeck Senior Attorney

CHARGE: Notice: Sec. 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), I&N Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A){iii)] Convicted of aggravated felony as defined in sections 101(a)(43)(F), (G)

APPLICATION: Termination of proceedings

This case was last before the Board on April 3, 2009, when we dismissed the respondent's appeal of the Immigration Judge's December 17, 2008, decision denying his motion to terminate proceedings based upon his claim of derivative citizenship under former section 321(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1432(a). In an order dated April 20, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where this case arises, remanded the record to the Board to further consider the respondent's claim of derivative citizenship. The appeal will be dismissed. In our April 3, 2009, decision, the Board distinguished the Second Circuit's decision in

Poole v. Mukasey, 522 F.3d 259 (2d Cir. 2008), from the respondent's case and concluded that the
record sufficiently established the reason for the delay in processing the respondent's father's naturalization application such that the respondent had not met his burden in establishing derivative citizenship under former section 32 l(a) of the Act. In its remand, the Second Circuit found that, in making its decision, the Board engaged in improper fact-finding directly relevant to the ultimate legal conclusion. See Coulbourne v. Holder, 372 Fed.Appx. 156 (2d Cir. 2010) (unpublished). The Second Circuit remanded the record to consider what relief might be available to the respondent considering the delay in adjudicating the father's naturalization application, filed prior to the respondent's 18th birthday, but approved 2 months after. See id.1

In its remand, the Second Circuit asks the Board to consider, in an appropriate case, issuing

a precedential opinion addressing the concerns it raised in Poole. See id. at FN 2. We do not find this to be the proper vehicle for a precedential decision. Frther, the Second Circuit subsequently dismissed the alien's petition for review of the Board's remanded order in Poole. See

Poole v. Holder, 363 Fed.Appx. 82 (2d Cir. 2010) (unpublished).

Cite as: Ryan Damion Coulbourne, A041 457 839 (BIA Jan. 18, 2011)

A041457 839
.

Our authority to grant relief nune pro tune is limited and does not extend to derivative United States citizenship claims. Therefore, because the respondent's father's application for naturalization was ultimately approved after the respondent turned 18 years old, we have no jurisdiction to find
nune pro tune that he derived United States citizenship under former section 321(a) ofthe Act. Even

if we had such authority, there is no evidence that the processing delay in this case was untoward, or that the government engaged in affirmative misconduct which would give rise to an equitable estoppel claim so as to warrant a finding that the respondent should be found to have derived United States citizenship nunc pro tune. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed.

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

FOR THE BOARD

'

Cite as: Ryan Damion Coulbourne, A041 457 839 (BIA Jan. 18, 2011)