Gonzalez-Alarcon v Macias

Gonzalez-Alarcon appealed dismissal of his habeas petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The panel, with one judge concurring, vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice. The majority held that the exhaustion requirement in 8 USC 1252(d)(1) only applies to aliens, Gonzalez-Alarcon made a facially plausible claim of citizenship and thus the requirement does not apply to this claim and this conclusions consistent with the decisions of other circuits and circuit precedent that citizenship defeats a deportation claim. It held that 1252 as a whole applies to cases involving citizens and 1252(a)(5) bars habeas review of the claim here as it attacks the underlying removal order. The majority held that Gonzalez-Alarcon had a strong suspension  clause argument against the 1252(a)(5) bar, but, held that consideration of the argument is not yet proper as Gonzalez-Alarcon may be babel to get his citizenship claim reviewed in the 5th Circuit through an untimely motion to reopen his removal proceeding. Tymkovich concurred arguing that Gonzalez-Alarcon can obtain review both through the motion to reopen and though filing a Form N-6000 application for a certificate of citizenship. Lucerno, who wrote the majority opinion, added concurrence arguing that claims of citizenship in the removal context are analogous to claims of actual innocence in the criminal context and thus procedural bars cannot prevent review.

Afamasaga v Sessions

Afamasanga appealed the denial of his cancellation of removal petition. The panel affirmed holding making a false statement in a passport application is a crime of moral turpitude because fraudulent intent is an element for any conviction under 18 USC 1542.