Guillermo Alberto Howard v. Attorney General of the United States

1Honorable Jane R. Roth assumed senior status on 5/31/06.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 05-3895
___________
GUILLERMO ALBERTO HOWARD,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES,
Respondent
_____________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
United States Department of Justice
Board of Immigration Appeals
(Agency No. A18-271-071)
Immigration Judge: Henry S. Dogin
_______________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 10, 2006
Before: RENDELL, AMBRO and 1ROTH, Circuit Judges.
(Filed : June 7, 2006)
______________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_____________
PER CURIAM
Guillermo Howard petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s decision denying his
motion to terminate his immigration proceedings and ordering him removed to Panama.
For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition.
On March 20, 2003, Howard was charged as removable based on his conviction
for an aggravated felony. Howard filed a motion to terminate the removal proceedings
and argued that he is a national or a citizen of the United States. On August 19, 2003, the
Immigration Judge found that Howard is not a United States national or citizen. The BIA
dismissed the appeal. Howard filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the District
Court which was converted to a petition for review and transferred to this Court pursuant
to the REAL ID Act.
Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), this court has jurisdiction to review
questions of law raised on appeal of a final order of removal of an alien who has
committed an aggravated felony. Thus, under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5)(A), we gave
jurisdiction to review Howard’s claim of nationality because there is no genuine issue of
material fact with respect to that claim. The parties do not dispute the underlying facts of
the case. We exercise plenary review over Howard’s claims. Jordon v. Attorney General,
424 F.3d 320, 328 (3d Cir. 2005).
Howard argues that he acquired citizenship through his birth in Panama and his
subsequent adoption by his United States citizen father. However, because at the time of
his birth in Panama, neither of his parents was a United States citizen, Howard did not
acquire citizenship because, at the time of his birth in Panama, his parents were neither

-- 2 of 3 --

3
United States citizens or nationals. See 8 U.S.C. § 1403. Howard further argues that he
became a citizen under the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 when his United States citizen
father adopted him. However, this Court has held that the Child Citizenship Act of 2000
does not apply retroactively. See Morgan v. Attorney General, 432 F.3d 226, 230 n.1 (3d
Cir. 2005).
Howard also asserts that he became a national of the United States when he
entered the military and took an oath of allegiance. He bases this argument on 8 U.S.C. §
1101(a)(22)(B), which provides that a national of the United States can be “a person who,
though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United
States.” However, we have held that, for a citizen of another country, “nothing less than
citizenship will show ‘permanent allegiance to the United States.’” Salim v. Ashcroft,
350 F.3d 307, 310 (3d Cir. 2003) (per curiam). Howard requested that the removal
proceedings be terminated to allow him to apply for naturalization based on his service in
the United States military during the conflict in Grenada. However, even if Howard was
eligible for naturalization for his military service, he failed to apply, and now, as a result
of his aggravated felony conviction, he is ineligible for citizenship. See 8 U.S.C. §
1427(a)(3); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(7), (8).
For the above reasons, we will deny the petition for review.

-- 3 of 3 --