Filed: Jun. 13, 2007
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 13, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-60349 Summary Calendar LAMBERT ROSLINS CHIMA LUCIOUS, also known as Lambert Roslins Emereni, also known as Lambert Roslins Roslins Emereni, also known as Lambert Roslins Lucious, also known as Lambert R. Lucious, Petitioner, v. ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. - Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 13, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-60349 Summary Calendar LAMBERT ROSLINS CHIMA LUCIOUS, also known as Lambert Roslins Emereni, also known as Lambert Roslins Roslins Emereni, also known as Lambert Roslins Lucious, also known as Lambert R. Lucious, Petitioner, v. ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. - Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of I..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 13, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-60349
Summary Calendar
LAMBERT ROSLINS CHIMA LUCIOUS, also known as Lambert Roslins
Emereni, also known as Lambert Roslins Roslins Emereni, also
known as Lambert Roslins Lucious, also known as Lambert
R. Lucious,
Petitioner,
v.
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A26 385 989
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lambert Roslins Chima Lucious petitions for review of a Board
of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal and
ordering him removed from the United States as an alien convicted
of an aggravated felony.
Lucious, a native and citizen of Nigeria, was convicted in
March 1993 of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute in
excess of one kilogram of heroin. Lucious contends that he is not
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 06-60349
-2-
removable because he is a United States citizen. Lucious claims
that he filed an application for naturalization and interviewed for
citizenship in 1992, at which time he signed his oath of allegiance
to the United States and surrendered his resident permit card.
“[A] person may become a national only by birth or by
completing the naturalization process.” Omolo v. Gonzales,
452
F.3d 404, 409 (5th Cir. 2006). Lucious was not born in the United
States, and he has not completed the naturalization process. The
filing of an application for naturalization accompanied by the
taking of an oath of allegiance and by the surrendering of a green
card is insufficient to establish citizenship. See
id. at 408 &
409. Lucious has not shown that he is a national of the United
States, and therefore he is subject to removal. See
id.
Lucious also contends that his due process rights were
violated when the immigration judge failed to provide him access to
his citizenship application files and denied his request to
subpoena Government officials to testify concerning the status of
his naturalization application. Lucious has failed to allege how
the contents of his citizenship files or the testimony of the
Government officials would have affected the outcome of the removal
hearing. The failure of Lucious to complete the naturalization
process is indisputable. Lucious has not made an initial showing
of substantial prejudice. See Anwar v. INS,
116 F.3d 140, 144 (5th
Cir. 1997).
No. 06-60349
-3-
For the foregoing reasons, Lucious’s petition for review is
denied. His motion for production of his citizenship files is
denied as this court is not the appropriate forum for such a
motion. Lucious’s motion for appointment of counsel also is
denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED; MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
DENIED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED.