-
11-1252-ag Morales-Santana v. Lynch
1 UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS2
FORTHESECONDCIRCUIT3 4
AugustTerm,20125 6
(Argued:April1,2013 FinalSubmission:November14,20147
Decided:July8,2015)8
9 DocketNo.111252ag10
11 X12 13 LUISRAMONMORALESSANTANA,AKALUISMORALES,14 15
Petitioner,16 17 v.18 19
LORETTAE.LYNCH,UNITEDSTATESATTORNEYGENERAL,*20 21
Respondent.22 23 X24 25
Before:LOHIER,CARNEY,CircuitJudges,andRAKOFF,DistrictJudge.**26
27
PetitionerLuisRamonMoralesSantanaseeksreviewofaBoardof28
ImmigrationAppeals(BIA)decisiondenyinghismotiontoreopenhis29
*PursuanttoFederalRuleofAppellateProcedure43(c)(2),AttorneyGeneralLorettaE.LynchisautomaticallysubstitutedforformerAttorneyGeneralEricH.Holder,Jr.asRespondent.**TheHonorableJedS.Rakoff,oftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheSouthernDistrictofNewYork,sittingbydesignation.
-
2
removalproceedingstoevaluatehisclaimofderivativecitizenship.Under1
thestatuteineffectwhenMoralesSantanawasborn,Immigrationand2
NationalityActof1952, 301(a)(7),309(a),(c)(codifiedat8U.S.C.3
1401(a)(7),1409(a),(c)(1952)),MoralesSantanasfathersatisfiedthe4
physicalpresencerequirementsfortransmittingcitizenshipapplicableto5
unwedcitizenmothersbutnotthemorestringentrequirementsapplicableto6
unwedcitizenfathers.Onappeal,MoralesSantanaarguesprincipallythat7
thisstatutoryschemeviolatestheFifthAmendmentsguaranteeofequal8
protection,andthattheproperremedyistoextendtounwedfathersthe9
benefitsunwedmothersreceiveunderthestatute.Weagreeandholdthat10
MoralesSantanaderivedcitizenshipatbirththroughhisfather.We11
accordinglyREVERSEtheBIAsdecisionandREMANDforfurther12
proceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.13 14
STEPHENA.BROOME(EllydeRokoand15 JacobWaldman,onthebrief),Quinn16
EmanuelUrquhart&Sullivan,LLP,17 NewYork,NY,forPetitioner. 18 19
IMRANR.ZAIDI,Attorney,Officeof20
ImmigrationLitigation,CivilDivision,21
U.S.DepartmentofJustice,Washington,22
DC(StuartDelery,ActingAssistant23 AttorneyGeneral,StephenJ.Flynn,24
AssistantDirector,Officeof25 ImmigrationLitigation,CivilDivision,26
KathrynM.McKinney,Attorney,Office27 ofImmigrationLitigation,Civil28
Division,onthebrief),forRespondent.29 30
LOHIER,CircuitJudge:31
LuisRamonMoralesSantanaasksustoreviewaMarch3,201132
decisionoftheBoardofImmigrationAppeals(BIA)denyinghismotionto33
-
3
reopenhisremovalproceedingsrelatingtohisclaimofderivative1
citizenship.UnderthestatuteineffectwhenMoralesSantanawasbornthe2
ImmigrationandNationalityActof1952(the1952Act)achildborn3
abroadtoanunwedcitizenmotherandnoncitizenfatherhascitizenshipat4
birthsolongasthemotherwaspresentintheUnitedStatesoroneofits5
outlyingpossessionsforacontinuousperiodofatleastoneyearatsome6
pointpriortothechildsbirth.See1952Act,309(c),66Stat.163,238397
(codifiedat8U.S.C.1409(c)(1952)).1Bycontrast,achildbornabroadtoan8
unwedcitizenfatherandnoncitizenmotherhascitizenshipatbirthonlyif9
thefatherwaspresentintheUnitedStatesoroneofitsoutlyingpossessions10
priortothechildsbirthforaperiodorperiodstotalingatleasttenyears,11
withatleastfiveofthoseyearsoccurringaftertheageoffourteen.Seeid.12
309(a)(codifiedat8U.S.C.1409(a)(1952));seealsoid.301(a)(7)(codified13
at8U.S.C.1401(a)(7)(1952)).2MoralesSantanasfathersatisfiedthe14
1Unlessotherwisenoted,referencesto1401and1409aretothosesectionsastheyappearinthe1952Act,andreferencestootherstatutoryprovisionsaretothosesectionsastheyappearinthecurrentcodification.2Section1401(a)(7)provided:
ThefollowingshallbenationalsandcitizensoftheUnitedStatesatbirth:...apersonbornoutsidethegeographicallimitsoftheUnited
-
4
requirementsfortransmittingcitizenshipapplicabletounwedmothersbut1
notthemorestringentrequirementsapplicabletounwedfathers.Onappeal,2
MoralesSantanaarguesprincipallythatthisgenderbaseddifferenceviolates3
theFifthAmendmentsguaranteeofequalprotectionandthattheproper4
remedyistoextendtounwedfathersthebenefitsunwedmothersreceive5
under1409(c).WeagreeandholdthatMoralesSantanaderivedcitizenship6
atbirththroughhisfather.WeaccordinglyREVERSEtheBIAsdecisionand7
REMANDforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.8
Statesanditsoutlyingpossessionsofparentsoneofwhomisanalien,andtheotheracitizenoftheUnitedStateswho,priortothebirthofsuchperson,wasphysicallypresentintheUnitedStatesoritsoutlyingpossessionsforaperiodorperiodstotalingnotlessthantenyears,atleastfiveofwhichwereafterattainingtheageoffourteenyears....
Section1409(a)providedthat1401(a)(7)shallapplyasofthedateofbirthtoachildbornoutofwedlockonoraftertheeffectivedateofthisAct,providedthatpaternityisestablishedbylegitimationbeforethechildturns21.Section1409(c)provided:
Notwithstandingtheprovisionofsubsection(a)ofthissection,apersonborn,onoraftertheeffectivedateofthisAct,outsidetheUnitedStatesandoutofwedlockshallbeheldtohaveacquiredatbirththenationalitystatusofhismother,ifthemotherhadthenationalityoftheUnitedStatesatthetimeofsuchpersonsbirth,andifthemotherhadpreviouslybeenphysicallypresentintheUnitedStatesoroneofitsoutlyingpossessionsforacontinuousperiodofoneyear.
-
5
BACKGROUND1
I.Facts2
Thefollowingundisputedfactsaredrawnfromtherecordonappeal.3
MoralesSantanasfather,JoseDoloresMorales,wasborninPuertoRicoon4
March19,1900andacquiredUnitedStatescitizenshipin1917pursuanttothe5
JonesAct.SeeJonesActofPuertoRico,ch.145,39Stat.951(codifiedat86
U.S.C.1402(1917)).HewasphysicallypresentinPuertoRicountilFebruary7
27,1919,20daysbeforehisnineteenthbirthday,whenheleftPuertoRicoto8
workintheDominicanRepublicfortheSouthPortoRicoSugarCompany.9
In1962MoralesSantanawasbornintheDominicanRepublictohis10
fatherandhisDominicanmother.MoralesSantanawaswhatisstatutorily11
describedaslegitimat[ed]byhisfatheruponhisparentsmarriagein197012
andadmittedtotheUnitedStatesasalawfulpermanentresidentin1975.13
8U.S.C.1409(a).MoralesSantanasfatherdiedin1976.14
II.StatutoryFramework15
Unlikecitizenshipbynaturalization,derivativecitizenshipexistsasofa16
childsbirthornotatall.See8U.S.C.1409(a),(c);cf.id.1101(a)(23).The17
lawineffectatthetimeofbirthgovernswhetherachildobtainedderivative18
-
6
citizenshipasofhisorherbirth.SeeAshtonv.Gonzales,431F.3d95,97(2d1
Cir.2005).Accordingly,the1952Actprovidesthestatutoryframework2
applicabletoMoralesSantanasnationalityclaim.3
Asnoted,the1952Actlimitstheabilityofanunwedcitizenfatherto4
confercitizenshiponhischildbornabroadwherethechildsmotherisnota5
citizenatthetimeofthechildsbirthmorestringentlythanitlimitsthe6
abilityofasimilarlysituatedunwedcitizenmothertodothesame.Compare7
8U.S.C.1401(a)(7),withid.1409(c).3Wenotethatthisdifferencein8
treatmentofunwedcitizenfathersandunwedcitizenmothers,though9
diminished,persistsinthecurrentstatute.Compare8U.S.C.1409(a)(2012)10
(applyingtounwedcitizenfathers1401(g),whichrequiresfiveyearsof11
physicalpresence,twoofwhichmustbeafteragefourteen),withid.1409(c)12
(maintainingthe1952Actsconferralofderivativecitizenshipbasedonan13
3Inadditiontosatisfyingtherequirementsof1401(a)(7),thefathermustestablishhispaternitythroughlegitimationofthechildbeforethechildturns21.See8U.S.C.1409(a).Asbothpartiesagree,MoralesSantanasfatherlegitimatedhissonin1970.MoralesSantanadoesnotcontestthestatuteslegitimationrequirement,andthatrequirementisnotatissueonappeal.SeeNguyenv.INS,533U.S.53(2001)(upholdingasconstitutionalthesimilarlegitimationrequirementfoundinthecurrentversionofthestatute,8U.S.C.1409(a)(4)(2000)).
-
7
unwedmotherscontinuousphysicalpresenceforoneyearatanytimeprior1
tothechildsbirth).2
III.ProceduralHistory3
In2000MoralesSantanawasplacedinremovalproceedingsafter4
havingbeenconvictedofvariousfelonies.Heappliedforwithholdingof5
removalonthebasisofderivativecitizenshipobtainedthroughhisfather.An6
immigrationjudgedeniedtheapplication.In2010MoralesSantanafileda7
motiontoreopenbasedonaviolationofequalprotectionandnewlyobtained8
evidencerelatingtohisfather.TheBIArejectedMoralesSantanas9
argumentsforderivativecitizenshipanddeniedhismotiontoreopen.10
DISCUSSION11
MoralesSantanamakesfourargumentsforderivativecitizenship:12
(1)thathisfathersphysicalabsencefromtheUnitedStatesduringthe2013
daysdirectlypriortohisfathersnineteenthbirthdayconstitutedade14
minimisgapinphysicalpresence,andthatsuchgapsshouldnotcount15
againstafindingofphysicalpresenceforpurposesof1401(a)(7);(2)thatthe16
SouthPortoRicoSugarCompany,whichemployedhisfatherafterhisfather17
movedtotheDominicanRepublic,wasamultinationalUnitedStatesowned18
-
8
companyandthereforeeffectivelypartoftheUnitedStatesgovernmentoran1
internationalorganizationasdefinedin22U.S.C.288,see1966Actto2
AmendtheImmigrationandNationalityAct(the1966Act),80Stat.13223
(codifiedat8U.S.C.1401(a)(7)(1966))(countingperiodsofemploymentfor4
certainorganizationstowardthestatutesphysicalpresencerequirements);(3)5
thatatthetimehisfathermovedtotheDominicanRepublicitwasan6
outlyingpossessionoftheUnitedStates;and(4)asnoted,thatthedifferent7
physicalpresencerequirementsapplicabletounwedfathersandunwed8
mothersunderthe1952Actviolateequalprotection.9
Consistentwithourobligationtoavoidconstitutionalquestionsif10
possible,wefirstaddressMoralesSantanasthreestatutoryargumentsfor11
derivativecitizenship.SeeEscambiaCnty.,Fla.v.McMillan,466U.S.48,5112
(1984)(percuriam).13
Astobothhisstatutoryandconstitutionalarguments,wereviewde14
novothequestionofMoralesSantanasderivativecitizenship.SeePhong15
ThanhNguyenv.Chertoff,501F.3d107,111(2dCir.2007).Ifthepetitioner16
claimstobeanationaloftheUnitedStatesandthecourtofappealsfinds17
fromthepleadingsandaffidavitsthatnogenuineissueofmaterialfactabout18
-
9
thepetitionersnationalityispresented,thecourtshalldecidethenationality1
claim.8U.S.C.1252(b)(5)(A).Nomaterialfactsaredisputed.2
I.StatutoryArguments3
MoralesSantanacontendsthathisfathersabsencefromtheUnited4
Statesduringthe20dayspriortohisfathersnineteenthbirthdayconstitutes5
ademinimisgapinhisfathersphysicalpresenceandthatsuchgaps6
shouldnotbeheldagainstsomeonewhoclaimstohavesatisfiedthe19527
Actsphysicalpresencerequirement.Insupport,MoralesSantanapointsto8
continuousphysicalpresencerequirementsundertheimmigrationlawsthat9
explicitlyexcusedeminimisabsences.See,e.g.,id.1229b(b)(1)(A),(d)(2)10
(2012)(absencesof90continuousdaysorfewerdonotbreakcontinuityof11
physicalpresenceforpurposesofcancellationofremovalforalawful12
permanentresident.);id.1255(l)(3),1255a(a)(3)(B).Byitsplainterms,13
1401(a)(7)hadnosimilarexception.Inanyevent,becauseMorales14
SantanasfatherlefttheUnitedStatesanditsoutlyingpossessions20days15
priortohisnineteenthbirthdayandneverreturned,therewasnogapinhis16
fathersphysicalpresencethatbridgedtwoperiodsofphysicalpresence.So17
evenifwerecognizedanexceptiontothephysicalpresencerequirementin18
-
10
1401fordeminimisgaps,wewouldrejectMoralesSantanasclaimon1
thisbasis.2
Relyingonthe1966Act,MoralesSantananextarguesthathisfathers3
employmentwiththeSouthPortoRicoSugarCompanyintheDominican4
RepublicimmediatelyafterleavingPuertoRicosatisfiedthestatutesphysical5
presencerequirementbyeffectivelycontinuinghisphysicalpresencethrough6
therequisiteperiod.Itistruethatthe1966Actprovidedthatemployment7
withtheUnitedStatesGovernmentorwithaninternationalorganization,as8
definedin22U.S.C.288,satisfiedthephysicalpresencerequirement.See9
8U.S.C.1401(a)(7)(1966).ButMoralesSantanasargumentlacksmerit10
becausehisfathersemploymentwiththeSouthPortoRicoSugarCompany,a11
multinationalcompany,didnotconstituteemploymentwiththeUnited12
StatesGovernment.SeeDrozdv.INS,155F.3d81,86(2dCir.1998).Nordid13
itconstituteemploymentwithaninternationalorganizationasdefinedin14
22U.S.C.288,sincetheSouthPortoRicoSugarCompanywasneithera15
publicinternationalorganizationinwhichtheUnitedStatesparticipates16
pursuanttoanytreatyorundertheauthorityofanyActofCongress17
-
11
authorizingsuchparticipationormakinganappropriationforsuch1
participation,nordesignatedbythePresidentassuch.22U.S.C.288.2
Ashisfinalstatutoryargument,MoralesSantanacontendsthatthe3
DominicanRepublicwasanoutlyingpossessionoftheUnitedStatesfor4
purposesofthe1952ActwhenMoralesSantanasfatherwastherein1919.5
TwofactorsconvinceusthatCongressdidnotintendtoincludethe6
DominicanRepublicwithinthescopeofthetermoutlyingpossessionin7
1401.48
First,thereisnotreatyorleasepursuanttowhichtheDominican9
Republicwasacquired.ThisstandsincontrasttothePhilippines,Guam,10
PuertoRico,andtheU.S.VirginIslands,allofwhichwereacquiredbythe11
UnitedStatesbytreaty,seeTreatyofPeacebetweentheUnitedStatesandthe12
KingdomofSpain,30Stat.1754(1899);ConventionbetweentheUnitedStates13
andDenmark,39Stat.1706(1917),andallofwhichwereoutlyingpossessions14
whentheUnitedStatesexercisedsovereigntyoverthem,seeMatterofV,9I.15
4CongressdidnotdefineoutlyingpossessionsuntiltheNationalityActof1940,whichdefinedoutlyingpossessionsasallterritory...overwhichtheUnitedStatesexercisesrightsofsovereignty,excepttheCanalZone.See101(e),54Stat.1137(codifiedat8U.S.C.501(e)(1940)).The1952ActdefinedthetermtoincludeonlyAmericanSamoaandSwainsIsland.101(a)(29),66Stat.170(codifiedat8U.S.C.1101(a)(29)(1952)).
-
12
&N.Dec.558,561(1962);MatterofY,7I.&N.Dec.667,668(1958).The1
caseofGuantanamoBay,Cubaisalittledifferentinthatitinvolvesbotha2
leaseandatreaty,butityieldsthesameresultvisvistheDominican3
Republic.InBoumedienev.Bush,553U.S.723(2008),theSupremeCourt4
determinedthatthecompletejurisdictionandcontrolbytheUnitedStates5
overGuantanamoBayconstituteddefactosovereigntyoverit.Id.at753556
(quotationmarksomitted).TheCourtadded,though,thatina1903Lease7
AgreementbetweenCubaandtheUnitedStates,theformergrantedthelatter8
completejurisdictionandcontroloverGuantanamoBayandthat[u]nder9
thetermsof[a]1934[t]reaty,...Cubaeffectivelyhasnorightsasasovereign10
untilthepartiesagreetomodificationofthe1903LeaseAgreementorthe11
UnitedStatesabandonsGuantanamoBay.Id.at753.Bycontrast,thereisno12
leaseortreatythatconferredtotheUnitedStatesdefactoordejure13
sovereigntyovertheDominicanRepublic.14
Second,weacknowledgethehistoricalfactthattheUnitedStates15
exercisedsignificantcontrolduringitsmilitaryoccupationoftheDominican16
Republicfrom1916to1924.SeeIngenioPorvenirC.PorA.v.UnitedStates,17
70Ct.Cl.735,738(1930).Butthatcontroldidnotextinguishthesovereignty18
-
13
oftheDominicanRepublic.Indeed,theProclamationoftheMilitary1
OccupationofSantoDomingobytheUnitedStatesspecificallydeclaredthat2
thepurposeofthetemporarymilitaryoccupationwastogiveaidto[the3
DominicanRepublic]inreturningtoaconditionofinternalorderwithout4
destroyingthesovereigntyoftheDominicanRepublic.11Supp.Am.J.5
IntlL.94,9496(1917)(Nov.29,1916Proclamation);seealsoBruceJ.Calder,6
TheImpactofIntervention:TheDominicanRepublicDuringtheU.S.7
Occupationof19161924xxvii,17,205(2ded.2006).8
HavingrejectedMoralesSantanasstatutoryargumentsforderivative9
citizenship,wenowconsiderhisconstitutionalequalprotectionargument.10
II.EqualProtection11
MoralesSantanaarguesprincipallythatthe1952Actstreatmentof12
derivativecitizenshipconferralrightsviolatestheFifthAmendments13
guaranteeofequalprotection.5Aswehaveexplained,underthe1952Act,an14
5MoralesSantanahasstandingtoassertthisequalprotectionclaimonbehalfofhisfathersinceMoralesSantanaallegesthathisfathersufferedaninjuryinfact,thathisfatherbearsacloserelationtohim,andthathisfathersabilitytoasserthisowninterestsishinderedbecausehisfatherisdeceased.SeeCampbellv.Louisiana,523U.S.392,397(1998)(citingPowersv.Ohio,499U.S.400,411(1991));seealsoMillerv.Albright,523U.S.420,433(1998)
-
14
unwedcitizenmotherconfershercitizenshiponherchild(bornabroadtoa1
noncitizenbiologicalfather)solongasshehassatisfiedtheoneyear2
continuouspresencerequirementpriortothechildsbirth.Thesingleyearof3
presencebythemothercanoccuratanytimepriortothechildsbirth4
including,forexample,fromthemothersfirstbirthdayuntilhersecond5
birthday.Anunwedcitizenfather,bycontrast,facesmuchmorestringent6
requirementsunder8U.S.C.1409(a),whichincorporates1401(a)(7).Heis7
preventedfromtransmittinghiscitizenship(tohischildbornabroadtoa8
noncitizenmother)unlesshewasphysicallypresentintheUnitedStatesor9
anoutlyingpossessionpriortothechildsbirthforatotalofatleastten10
years.6Becausefiveofthoseyearsmustfollowthefathersfourteenth11
birthday,anunwedcitizenfathercannottransmithiscitizenshiptohischild12
bornabroadtoanoncitizenmotherbeforethefathersnineteenthbirthday.13
Eighteenyearoldcitizenfathersandtheirchildrenareoutofluck.14
(opinionofStevens,J.);id.at44950(OConnor,J.,concurring);id.at454n.1(Scalia,J.,concurring);id.at473(Breyer,J.,dissenting).6Asnoted,thefathermustalsosatisfyalegitimationrequirement.See8U.S.C.1409(a).
-
15
Asbothpartiesagree,hadMoralesSantanasmother,ratherthanhis1
father,beenacitizencontinuouslypresentinPuertoRicountil20daysprior2
tohernineteenthbirthday,shewouldhavesatisfiedtherequirementsto3
conferderivativecitizenshiponherchild.Itisthisgenderbaseddifferencein4
treatmentthatMoralesSantanaclaimsviolatedhisfathersrighttoequal5
protection.6
TheGovernmentassertsthatthedifferenceisjustifiedbytwointerests:7
(1)ensuringasufficientconnectionbetweencitizenchildrenandtheUnited8
States,and(2)avoidingstatelessness.Inwhatfollows,weapplyintermediate9
scrutinytoassesstheseassertedinterests,andweconcludethatneither10
interestisadvancedbythestatutesgenderbasedphysicalpresence11
requirements.Afterdeterminingthatthesephysicalpresencerequirements12
violateequalprotection,weapplythestatutesseveranceclauseand13
determinethatMoralesSantana,underthestatutestrippedofits14
constitutionaldefect,hascitizenshipasofhisbirth.15
A.LevelofScrutiny16
Weapplyintermediate,heightenedscrutinytolawsthatdiscriminate17
onthebasisofgender.UnitedStatesv.Virginia,518U.S.515,53133(1996).18
-
16
Underintermediatescrutiny,thegovernmentclassificationmustserveactual1
andimportantgovernmentalobjectives,andthediscriminatorymeans2
employedmustbesubstantiallyrelatedtotheachievementofthose3
objectives.Nguyenv.INS,533U.S.53,68(2001);Virginia,518U.S.at533.4
Furthermore,thejustificationforthechallengedclassificationmustbe5
genuine,nothypothesizedorinventedposthocinresponsetolitigation.And6
itmustnotrelyonoverbroadgeneralizationsaboutthedifferenttalents,7
capacities,orpreferencesofmalesandfemales.Virginia,518U.S.at533.8
Inurgingustoapplyrationalbasisscrutinyinstead,theGovernment9
reliesonFiallov.Bell,430U.S.787(1977).InFiallo,theSupremeCourt10
appliedrationalbasisscrutinytoasectionofthe1952Actthatgavespecial11
preferenceforadmissionintotheUnitedStatestononcitizensbornoutof12
wedlockseekingentrybyvirtueofarelationshipwiththeircitizenmothers,13
butnottosimilarlysituatednoncitizensseekingentrybyvirtueofa14
relationshipwiththeircitizenfathers.Seeid.at798.TheCourtreasonedthat15
rationalbasisscrutinywaswarrantedbecauseovernoconceivablesubjectis16
thelegislativepowerofCongressmorecompletethanitisovertheadmission17
ofaliens,and[o]urcaseshavelongrecognizedthepowertoexpelor18
-
17
excludealiensasafundamentalsovereignattributeexercisedbythe1
Governmentspoliticaldepartments.Id.at792(emphasesadded)(quotation2
marksomitted);seealsoKleindienstv.Mandel,408U.S.753,766(1972)3
(Congresshasplenarypowertomakerulesfortheadmissionandexclusion4
ofnoncitizens.(quotationmarksomitted)).5
ButFialloisdistinguishable.InFiallo,thechildrensalienage6
implicatedCongresssexceptionallybroadpowertoadmitorremovenon7
citizens.Fiallo,430U.S.at794.Here,bycontrast,thereisnosimilarissueof8
alienagethatwouldtriggerspecialdeference.BecauseMoralesSantana9
insteadclaimspreexistingcitizenshipatbirth,hischallengedoesnot10
implicateCongressspowertoadmitorexcludeforeigners,id.at795n.6,11
andthereforeisnotgovernedbyFiallo.12
OurviewofFialloslimitedscopeisgroundedinSupremeCourtand13
circuitcaselaw.Asaninitialmatter,wenotethattheSupremeCourthas14
neverappliedthedeferentialFiallostandardtoissuesofgender15
discriminationunder1409,despitebeingaskedtodosoonatleastthree16
occasions.SeeMillerv.Albright,523U.S.420(1998)(decliningtoapply17
Fiallo);Nguyenv.INS,533U.S.53(2001)(applyingheightenedscrutiny);18
-
18
UnitedStatesv.FloresVillar,131S.Ct.2312(2011)(percuriam)(affirming1
withoutopinionbydivided44vote).JusticeStevensopinioninMiller2
succinctlydescribedFialloslimitation:Itisofsignificancethatthe3
petitionerinthiscase,unlikethepetitionersinFiallo,...isnotchallenging4
thedenialofanapplicationforspecial[immigration]status.Sheiscontesting5
theGovernmentsrefusalto...treatherasacitizen.Ifsheweretoprevail,6
thejudgment...wouldconfirmherpreexistingcitizenship.Miller,523U.S.7
at432(pluralityopinion);seealsoid.at429(Fiallo...involvedtheclaimsof8
...alienstoaspecialimmigrationpreference,whereasherepetitionerclaims9
thatsheis,andforyearshasbeen,anAmericancitizen.).10
AlthoughnoopinioninMillerreceivedamajorityofvotes,we11
observedinLakev.RenothatsevenjusticesinMillerwouldhaveapplied12
heightenedscrutiny...[toINA]section309(a).226F.3d141,148(2dCir.13
2000),vacatedsubnom.Ashcroftv.Lake,533U.S.913(2001)(citingNguyen),14
abrogatedonothergroundsbyLakev.Ashcroft,43F.Appx417,418(2dCir.15
2002).Later,inLewisv.Thompson,weexplainedLakesholdinginaway16
thatmakesitclearthatheightenedscrutiny,ratherthanFiallosmore17
deferentialstandardofreview,shouldapplytoMoralesSantanasclaim:18
-
19
[W]ehavealreadyheldinLake,drawinganinferencefromthevarious1
opinionsoftheJusticesinMiller,thatcitizenclaimantswithanequal2
protectionclaimdeservingofheightenedscrutinydonotlosethatfavorable3
formofreviewsimplybecausethecasearisesinthecontextofimmigration.4
252F.3d567,591(2dCir.2001);seealsoid.at590(AswerecognizedinLake,5
Fialloitselfmadeclearthatthereducedthresholdofjustificationfor6
governmentalactionthatappliedtoimmigrantsdidnotapplytocitizens.7
(emphasisadded)(quotationmarksomitted)).Oursistercircuitsthathave8
consideredFiallosapplicationtoclaimssimilartoMoralesSantanasarein9
accord.SeeNguyenv.INS,208F.3d528,535(5thCir.2000)(notingthatthe10
statuteinFiallodealtwiththeclaimsofaliensforspecialimmigration11
preferencesforaliens,whereasthepetitionersclaiminthiscaseisthatheisa12
citizen),affd,533U.S.53(2001);Breyerv.Meissner,214F.3d416,425(3d13
Cir.2000)(applyingheightenedscrutinyto1993oftheRevisedStatutesof14
1874,apredecessorto1409,becauseitcreatedagenderclassificationwith15
respectto[petitioners]mothersabilitytopasshercitizenshiptoherforeign16
bornchildathisbirth);UnitedStatesv.AhumadaAguilar,189F.3d1121,17
1126(9thCir.1999)(applyingMillertof[i]nd1409(a)(4)unconstitutionalby18
-
20
applyingheightenedscrutiny),vacated,533U.S.913(2001)(citingNguyen),1
abrogatedonothergroundsby295F.3d943(9thCir.2002);cf.UnitedStates2
v.FloresVillar,536F.3d990,996n.2(9thCir.2008)(LiketheSupremeCourt3
inNguyen,wewillassumethatintermediatescrutinyapplies.),affdbyan4
equallydividedCourt,131S.Ct.2312.5
Forthesereasons,weconcludethatthegenderbasedschemein14016
and1409canbeupheldonlyiftheGovernmentshowsthatitissubstantially7
relatedtoanactualandimportantgovernmentalobjective.SeeVirginia,5188
U.S.at531,533,53536;Miss.Univ.forWomenv.Hogan,458U.S.718,7249
(1982).Inassessingthevalidityofthegenderbasedclassification,moreover,10
weconsidertheexistenceofgenderneutralalternativestotheclassification.11
See,e.g.,Wenglerv.DruggistsMut.Ins.Co.,446U.S.142,151(1980);Orrv.12
Orr,440U.S.268,281(1979);Weinbergerv.Wiesenfeld,420U.S.636,65313
(1975).14
B.GovernmentalInterestsandTailoring15
Havingdeterminedthatintermediatescrutinyapplies,weexaminethe16
twointereststhattheGovernmentclaimssupportthestatutesgenderbased17
distinction.18
-
21
1. EnsuringaSufficientConnectionBetweentheChild1
andtheUnitedStates2
3 TheGovernmentassertsthatCongresspassedthe1952Actsphysical4
presencerequirementsinordertoensur[e]thatforeignbornchildrenof5
parentsofdifferentnationalitieshaveasufficientconnectiontotheUnited6
Statestowarrantcitizenship.RespondentsBr.3839.Asbothpartiesagree,7
thisinterestisimportant,andCongressactuallyhaditinmindwhen8
requiringsomeperiodofphysicalpresencebeforeacitizenparentcould9
confercitizenshiponhisorherchildbornabroad.SeePetitionersBr.35n.1710
(citingWeedinv.ChinBow,274U.S.657,66667(1927)).11
TheGovernmentinvokesthisimportantinterestbutfailstojustifythe12
1952Actsdifferenttreatmentofmothersandfathersbyreferencetoit.It13
offersnoreason,andweseenoreason,thatunwedfathersneedmoretime14
thanunwedmothersintheUnitedStatespriortotheirchildsbirthinorderto15
assimilatethevaluesthatthestatuteseekstoensurearepassedontocitizen16
childrenbornabroad.17
Werecognizethatourdeterminationconflictswiththedecisionofthe18
NinthCircuitinFloresVillar,536F.3d990,whichaddressedthesame19
statutoryprovisionsanddiscussedthesamegovernmentalinterestin20
-
22
ensuringaconnectionbetweenchildandcountry.TheNinthCircuit1
concludedthatinadditiontopreventingorreducingstatelessnessan2
objectiveweaddressbelow[t]heresidencedifferential...furthersthe3
objectiveofdevelopingatiebetweenthechild,hisorherfather,andthis4
country.FloresVillar,536F.3dat997.TheNinthCircuitprovidedno5
explanationforitsconclusion,andtheGovernmentprovidesnonehere.6
Instead,theGovernmentreliesonNguyentoexplainwhythedifferent7
physicalpresencerequirementsforunwedmenandwomenreflectaconcern8
withensuringanadequateconnectionbetweenthechildandtheUnited9
States.Wearenotpersuaded.InNguyen,theCourtupheldtheImmigration10
andNationalityActsrequirementthatacitizenfatherseekingtoconfer11
derivativecitizenshiponhisforeignbornchildtaketheaffirmativestepof12
eitherlegitimatingthechild,declaringpaternityunderoath,orobtaininga13
courtorderofpaternity.7SeeNguyen,533U.S.at62;8U.S.C.1409(a)(4)14
(2000).TheNguyenCourtdeterminedthattwointerestssupportedthe15
legitimationrequirementforcitizenfathersofchildrenbornabroad.16
7Forbrevity,werefertotheseasconstitutingalegitimationrequirement,thoughlegitimationisjustoneofthreewaysofsatisfyingthestatutoryprovision.
-
23
Thefirstinterest,assuringthatabiologicalparentchildrelationship1
exists,Nguyen,533U.S.at62;seeMiller,523U.S.at43536,isirrelevantto2
the1952Actsphysicalpresencerequirementsbecausederivativecitizenship3
separatelyrequiresunwedcitizenfatherstohavelegitimatedtheirforeign4
bornchildren.Here,MoralesSantanasfatherestablishedhisbiologicaltieto5
MoralesSantanabylegitimatinghim.HisphysicalpresenceinPuertoRico6
fortenyearsasopposedtooneyearpriortoMoralesSantanasbirthwould7
haveprovidednoadditionalassurancethatabiologicaltieexisted.8
TheNguyenCourtidentifiedasecondinterestinensuringthatthe9
childandthecitizenparenthavesomedemonstratedopportunityorpotential10
todevelopareal,meaningfulrelationship.Nguyen,533U.S.at6465.The11
Courtexplainedthatabiologicalmother,byvirtueofgivingbirthtothechild,12
knowsthatthechildisinbeingandishers,butthatanunwedbiological13
fathermightinsomecasesnotevenknowthatachildwasconceived,noris14
italwaysclearthateventhemotherwillbesureofthefathersidentity.Id.15
at65.Ratherthanrequiringacasebycaseanalysisofwhetherafatherora16
motherhasareal,meaningfulrelationshipwithachildbornabroad,17
Congressenactedaneasilyadministeredschemetopromotethedifferent18
-
24
butstillsubstantialinterestofensuringatleastanopportunityforaparent1
childrelationshiptodevelop.Id.at69.Thisinterestinensuringthe2
opportunityforareal,meaningfulrelationshipbetweenparentandchildis3
likewisenotrelevanttothe1952Actsphysicalpresencerequirements.By4
legitimatinghisson,MoralesSantanasfathertooktheaffirmativestepof5
demonstratingthatanopportunityforameaningfulrelationshipexisted.6
Andagain,requiringthatMoralesSantanasfatherbephysicallypresentin7
PuertoRicopriortoMoralesSantanasbirthfortenyearsinsteadofoneyear8
wouldhavedonenothingtofurtherensurethatanopportunityforsucha9
relationshipexisted.10
Soweagreethatunwedmothersandfathersarenotsimilarlysituated11
withrespecttothetwotypesofparenttochildtiesjustifyingthe12
legitimationrequirementatissueinNguyen.Butunwedmothersandfathers13
aresimilarlysituatedwithrespecttohowlongtheyshouldbepresentinthe14
UnitedStatesoranoutlyingpossessionpriortothechildsbirthinorderto15
haveassimilatedcitizenshiprelatedvaluestotransmittothechild.16
Therefore,thestatutesgenderbaseddistinctionisnotsubstantiallyrelatedto17
-
25
thegoalofensuringasufficientconnectionbetweencitizenchildrenandthe1
UnitedStates.2
2. PreventingStatelessness3
HavingconcludedthattheGovernmentsinterestinestablishinga4
connectionbetweentheforeignbornchildandtheUnitedStatesdoesnot5
explainorjustifythegenderbaseddistinctioninthe1952Actsphysical6
presencerequirements,wenowturntotheGovernmentsotherasserted7
interest.TheGovernmentarguesthatCongressenacteddifferentphysical8
presencerequirementsin1409(a)(incorporating1401(a)(7))and1409(c)9
toreducethelevelofstatelessnessamongnewborns.Forexample,achild10
bornoutofwedlockabroadmaybestatelessifheisborninsideacountrythat11
doesnotconfercitizenshipbasedonplaceofbirthandneitherofthechilds12
parentsconferredderivativecitizenshiponhim.13
Theavoidanceofstatelessnessisclearlyanimportantgovernmental14
interest.SeeKennedyv.MendozaMartinez,372U.S.144,16061(1963);Trop15
v.Dulles,356U.S.86,102(1958)(pluralityopinion).Contrarytothe16
Governmentsclaim,though,avoidanceofstatelessnessdoesnotappearto17
havebeenCongresssactualpurposeinestablishingthephysicalpresence18
-
26
requirementsinthe1952Act,seeVirginia,518U.S.at533,andinanyevent1
thegenderbaseddistinctionsinthe1952Actsphysicalpresence2
requirementsarenotsubstantiallyrelatedtothatobjective.3
a. ActualPurpose4
SomehistoricalbackgroundisusefultounderstandCongressspurpose5
inestablishingthe1952Actsgenderbasedphysicalpresencerequirements.6
Until1940,acitizenfatherwhosechildwasbornabroadtransmittedhis7
citizenshiptothatchildifthefatherhadresidedintheUnitedStatesforany8
periodoftimepriortothechildsbirth.SeeRogersv.Bellei,401U.S.815,8239
25(1971)(discussingtheActofMarch26,1790,1Stat.103,andsuccessive10
statutes);ActofMay24,1934,ch.344,48Stat.797;NationalityActof1940(the11
1940Act),ch.876,201(g),54Stat.1137,1139.Consistentwithcommon12
lawnotionsofcoverture,andwiththenotionthatthehusbanddetermined13
thepoliticalandculturalcharacterofhisdependents(wifeandchildren14
included),priorto1934marriedwomenhadnostatutoryrighttoconfertheir15
owncitizenship.8SeeBrief[of]AmiciCuriaeofProfessorsofHistory,16
8In1934Congressgrantedcitizenmothers,whethermarriedorunmarried,therighttoconfercitizenshipontheirchildrenbornabroadifthemother
-
27
PoliticalScience,andLawinSupportofPetitionerat9,FloresVillarv.United1
States,131S.Ct.2312(2010),2010WL2602009;CandiceLewisBredbenner,A2
NationalityofHerOwn:Women,Marriage,andtheLawofCitizenship843
(1998).Butforunmarriedcitizenmothers,theStateDepartmentspractice4
sinceatleast1912wastograntcitizenshiptotheirforeignbornchildrenon5
thetheorythatanunmarriedmotherstandsintheplaceofthefatherandis6
inanyeventboundtomaintain[thechild]asitsnaturalguardian.To7
ReviseandCodifytheNationalityLawsoftheUnitedStatesIntoa8
ComprehensiveNationalityCode:HearingBeforetheH.Comm.on9
ImmigrationandNaturalization,76thCong.431(1945)(quotationmarks10
omitted).11
In1940Congressforthefirsttimeexplicitlyaddressedthesituationof12
childrenbornoutofwedlock.ItenactedSection205ofthe1940Act,54Stat.13
at113940,whichprovidedthatcitizenfathersandmarriedcitizenmothers14
couldtransmitcitizenshiptotheirchildbornabroadonlyaftersatisfyingan15
agecalibratedtenyearphysicalpresencerequirement,butthatunmarried16
citizenmotherscouldconfercitizenshipiftheyhadresidedintheUnited17
satisfiedthesameminimalresidencyrequirementapplicabletocitizenfathers.SeeActofMay24,1934,ch.344,1,48Stat.797.
-
28
Statesatanypointpriortothechildsbirth.The1952Actretainedthisbasic1
statutorystructure,thoughitimposedasomewhatmorestringent2
requirementthatunmarriedmothershavebeenphysicallypresentinthe3
UnitedStatesforacontinuousperiodofoneyearinordertoconfer4
citizenship.8U.S.C.1409(c).5
Neitherthecongressionalhearingsnortherelevantcongressional6
reportsconcerningthe1940Actcontainanyreferencetotheproblemof7
statelessnessforchildrenbornabroad.9Thecongressionalhearings8
concerningthe1952Actaresimilarlysilentaboutstatelessnessasadriving9
concern.10Notwithstandingtheabsenceofrelevantdiscussionconcerningthe10
9Cf.KristinA.Collins,IllegitimateBorders:JusSanguinisCitizenshipandtheLegalConstructionofFamily,Race,andNation,123YaleL.J.2134,2205n.283(2014)([I]nthemanyhundredsofpre1940administrativememosIhavereadthatdefendorexplainrecognitionofthenonmaritalforeignbornchildrenofAmericanmothersascitizens,IhaveidentifiedexactlyonememobyaU.S.officialthatmentionstheriskofstatelessnessfortheforeignbornnonmaritalchildrenofAmericanmothersasaconcern.(citingMemorandumfromGreenHackworth,OfficeoftheSolicitor,U.S.DeptofState,toRichardFlournoy,OfficeoftheSolicitor,U.S.DeptofState(Aug.14,1928)(onfilewithNationalArchivesandRecordsAdministration,RelevantGroup59,CentralDecimalFile131))).10TheGovernmentdoesciteonecongressionalreportinwhichstatelessnesswasmentionedinconjunctionwiththe1952Act.ASenateReportdatedJanuary29,1952mentionstheproblemofstatelessnessinexplainingwhythe
-
29
problemofstatelessnessforchildrenbornabroadinthelegislativehistory,1
theGovernmentpointstotheExecutiveBranchsexplanatorycommentsto2
Section204oftheproposednationalitycodethatCongresswouldultimately3
enactasthe1940Act.See76thCong.431.Thesecommentsrefertoa19354
lawreviewarticleentitledAComparativeStudyofLawsRelatingto5
NationalityatBirthandtoLossofNationality,29Am.J.IntlL.248(1935),by6
DurwardV.Sandifer.11Accordingtothearticle,in1935approximatelythirty7
1952Acteliminatedaprovisioninthe1940Actthathadconditionedacitizenmothersabilitytotransmitnationalitytoherchildonthefathersfailuretolegitimatethechildpriortothechildseighteenthbirthday.See1940Act,205,54Stat.at1140(Intheabsenceof...legitimationoradjudication[duringthechildsminority],...thechildbornabroadtoanunmarriedcitizenmothershallbeheldtohaveacquiredatbirth[themothers]nationalitystatus.(emphasesadded)).The1952Acteliminatedthisprovision,allowingthemothertotransmitcitizenshipindependentofthefathersactions.S.Rep.No.1137,at39(1952)(Thisprovisionestablishingthechildsnationalityasthatofthe[citizen]motherregardlessoflegitimationorestablishmentofpaternityisnew.Itinsuresthatthechildshallhaveanationalityatbirth.(emphasisadded)).
AlthoughtheReportreflectscongressionalawarenessofstatelessnessasaproblem,itdoesnotpurporttojustifythegenderbaseddistinctionsinthephysicalpresenceprovisionsatissueinthisappeal.
11ContrarytotheGovernmentsassertion,theSandiferarticledoesnotindicatethatitwasconductedbytheStateDepartment.Rather,Sandifer,whoworkedattheStateDepartmentatthetimehewrotethearticle,explainsattheoutsetthathedecidedtowriteitatthesuggestionofacolleague,not
-
30
countrieshadstatutesassigningchildrenbornoutofwedlockthecitizenship1
oftheirmother.Id.at258.Fromthecommentsandthearticle,the2
GovernmenturgesustoinferthatCongresswasawarethereexisteda3
substantialriskthatachildborntoanunwedU.S.citizenmotherinacountry4
employing[lawsdeterminingcitizenshipbasedonlineage,ratherthanplace5
ofbirth]wouldbestatelessatbirthunlessthemothercouldpassher6
citizenshiptoherchild,andthatthisriskwasuniquetothechildrenof7
unwedcitizenmothers.RespondentsMay8,2013Supp.Br.2,67.128
BasedonourreviewoftheExecutiveBranchsexplanatorycomments9
andtheSandiferarticle,wedeclinetheGovernmentsinvitation.The10
explanatorycommentsdonotmentionstatelessnessanddonotrefertothe11
Sandiferarticlesdiscussionofstatelessness.Inanyevent,theSandiferarticle12
itselfdoesnotsupporttheGovernmentsargumentthatthechildrenof13
pursuanttoanofficialdirective.SeeSandifer,ComparativeStudy,29Am.J.IntlL.at248.12Inresponsetoourorderrequestingsupplementalbriefingontheissue,theGovernmentwasunabletofurnishanyotherevidencethatCongressenactedortheExecutiveencouragedthe1940Actsorthe1952Actsgenderbasedphysicalpresencerequirementsduetoconcernsaboutstatelessness.
-
31
unwedcitizenmothersfacedagreaterriskofstatelessnessthanthechildren1
ofunwedcitizenfathers.2
WhiletheExecutiveBranchscommentsignoretheproblemof3
statelessness,theyarguablyreflectgenderbasedgeneralizationsconcerning4
whowouldcareforandbeassociatedwithachildbornoutofwedlock.135
Othercontemporaryadministrativememorandasimilarlyignoretheriskof6
statelessnessforchildrenbornoutofwedlockabroadtocitizenmothers.147
Insum,wediscernnoevidence(1)thatCongressenactedthe1952Acts8
genderbasedphysicalpresencerequirementsoutofaconcernfor9
statelessness,(2)thattheproblemofstatelessnesswasinfactgreaterfor10
13Thecommentsreflecttheviewthatthemotherisboundtomaintaincustodyandcontrolof...achild[bornoutofwedlock]asagainsttheputativefatherasitsnaturalguardianandthat[t]hemother,asguardianbynurture,hastherighttothecustodyandcontrolofherbastardchild.76thCong.431(quotationmarksomitted);seealsoCollins,123YaleL.J.at2205([T]hehistoricalrecordrevealsthatthepronouncedgenderasymmetryofthe[1940]NationalityActstreatmentofnonmaritalforeignbornchildrenofAmericanmothersandfatherswasshapedbycontemporarymaternalistnormsregardingthemothersrelationshipwithhernonmaritalchildandthefatherslackofsucharelationship.);id.at2203(quotingasrepresentativeofcontemporaryviewsaninternallettertoaStateDepartmentofficialstatingthatasapracticalmatter,itiswellknownthatalmostinvariablyitisthemotherwhoconcernsherselfwith[thenonmarital]child).14
SeeCollins,123YaleL.J.at2205n.283.
-
32
childrenofunwedcitizenmothersthanforchildrenofunwedcitizenfathers,1
or(3)thatCongressbelievedthattheproblemofstatelessnesswasgreaterfor2
childrenofunwedcitizenmothersthanforchildrenofunwedcitizenfathers.3
WeconcludethatneitherreasonnorhistorysupportstheGovernments4
contentionthatthe1952Actsgenderbasedphysicalpresencerequirements5
weremotivatedbyaconcernforstatelessness,asopposedtoimpermissible6
stereotyping.7
b. SubstantialRelationshipBetweenEndsand8 Means9
10
Evenassumingforthesakeofargumentthatpreventingstatelessness11
wasCongresssactualmotivatingconcernwhenitenactedthephysical12
presencerequirements,wearepersuadedbytheavailabilityofeffective13
genderneutralalternativesthatthegenderbaseddistinctionbetween14
1409(a)(incorporating1401(a)(7))and1409(c)cannotsurvive15
intermediatescrutiny.SeeWengler,446U.S.at151(invalidatingagender16
basedclassificationwhereagenderneutralapproachwouldservetheneeds17
ofbothclasses);Orr,440U.S.at28283(Agenderbasedclassificationwhich,18
ascomparedtoagenderneutralone,generatesadditionalbenefitsonlyfor19
thoseithasnoreasontoprefercannotsurviveequalprotectionscrutiny.).20
-
33
Asfarbackas1933,SecretaryofStateCordellHullproposedjustsucha1
genderneutralalternativeinalettertotheChairmanoftheHouseCommittee2
onImmigrationandNaturalization.SecretaryHullsuggestedthatthe3
immigrationlawsberevisedtoobtaintheobjectiveofparitybetweenthe4
sexesinnationalitymattersbyremov[ing]...discriminationbetween5
mothersandfatherswithregardtothetransmissionofcitizenshipto6
childrenbornabroad.Hullproposedthefollowinglanguage:7
PROPOSEDAMENDMENT...8
(d)Achildhereafterbornoutofwedlockbeyondthelimitsand9
jurisdictionoftheUnitedStatesanditsoutlyingpossessionstoan10
AmericanparentwhohasresidedintheUnitedStatesanditsoutlying11
possessions,therebeingnootherlegalparentunderthelawofthe12
placeofbirth,shallhavethenationalityofsuchAmericanparent.13 14
LetterfromSecyHulltoChairmanDickstein(Mar.27,1933)(Respondents15
May8,2013Supp.Br.Ex.B).1516
AndunlikethelegitimationrequirementatissueinNguyen,which17
couldbesatisfiedby,forexample,awrittenacknowledgmentofpaternity18
15In1936,anExecutiveBranchofficialwhoparticipatedindraftingthe1940ActrecognizedthatSection204[ofthe1940Act]asdrawnupbytheCommitteeslightlydiscriminatesinfavorofwomen.LetterfromJohnJ.ScanlontoRuthB.Shipley,U.S.DeptofState(Mar.7,1936)(PetitionersNov.14,2014Supp.Br.Ex.4);seealsoCollins,123YaleL.J.at2235.
-
34
underoath,thephysicalpresencerequirementthatMoralesSantana1
challengesimposesmorethanaminimalburdenonunwedcitizenfathers.2
SeeNguyen,533U.S.at7071.Itaddstothelegitimationrequirementten3
yearsofphysicalpresenceintheUnitedStates,fiveofwhichmustbeafterthe4
ageoffourteen.Inourview,thisburdenonacitizenfathersrighttoconfer5
citizenshiponhisforeignbornchildissubstantial.166
Forthesereasons,thegenderbaseddistinctionattheheartofthe19527
Actsphysicalpresencerequirementsisnotsubstantiallyrelatedtothe8
achievementofapermissible,nonstereotypebasedobjective.179
16Aswehavealreadynoted,theburdenisactuallyimpossibleforeighteenyearoldunwedcitizenfatherstosatisfy.17WenoteoncemorethatourconclusiondiffersfromthatoftheNinthCircuitinFloresVillar.TheretheNinthCircuitassumed,subsilentio,thatCongresssenactmentofthephysicalpresencerequirementswasactuallymotivatedbyconcernforreductionintheriskofstatelessness.Italsonominallyassumed,withoutdeciding,thatintermediatescrutinyapplied.See536F.3dat996&n.2.WedisagreewiththeNinthCircuitthattheGovernmenthascarrieditsburdenofshowinganexceedinglypersuasivejustificationforthestatutesgenderbasedclassificationasameansofaddressingtheproblemofstatelessness.SeeKirchbergv.Feenstra,450U.S.455,461(1981).TheGovernmenthasnotshownthattheproblemaroseorwasperceivedtoarisemoreoftenwithcitizenmothersthanwithcitizenfathersofchildrenbornoutofwedlockabroad.See,e.g.,Sandifer,ComparativeStudy,29Am.J.IntlL.at254;BriefofAmiciCuriaeScholarson
-
35
3.Remedy1
Wenowturntothemostvexingprobleminthiscase.Here,two2
statutoryprovisions1409(c)and(a)18combinetoviolateequal3
protection.Whatistheremedyforthisviolationofequalprotection,where4
citizenshipisatstake?Ordinarily,whentherightinvokedisthattoequal5
treatment,theappropriateremedyisamandateofequaltreatment,aresult6
thatcanbeaccomplishedbywithdrawalofbenefitsfromthefavoredclassas7
wellasbyextensionofbenefitstotheexcludedclass.Hecklerv.Mathews,8
465U.S.728,740(1984)(emphasisomitted)(quotingIowaDesMoinesNatl9
Bankv.Bennett,284U.S.239,247(1931));accordCalifanov.Westcott,44310
U.S.76,89(1979).11
Asweseeit,equaltreatmentmightbeachievedinanyoneofthree12
ways:(1)strikingboth1409(c)and(a)entirely;(2)severingtheoneyear13
continuouspresenceprovisionin1409(c)andrequiringeveryunwedcitizen14
parenttosatisfythemoreoneroustenyearrequirementiftheotherparent15
StatelessnessinSupportofPetitioner,FloresVillarv.UnitedStates,131S.Ct.2312(2010),2010WL2569160.18Recallthat1409(a)incorporatesthephysicalpresencerequirementfrom1401(a)(7),whichappliestomarriedparentsofmixedcitizenship.
-
36
lackscitizenship;or(3)severingthetenyearrequirementin1409(a)and1
1401(a)(7)andrequiringeveryunwedcitizenparenttosatisfytheless2
onerousoneyearcontinuouspresencerequirementiftheotherparentlacks3
citizenship.Inselectingamongthesethreeoptions,welooktotheintentof4
Congressinenactingthe1952Act.SeeCal.Fed.Sav.&LoanAssnv.Guerra,5
479U.S.272,292n.31(1987)([T]heCourtmustlooktotheintentofthe...6
legislaturetodeterminewhethertoextendbenefitsornullifythestatute.).7
Forreasonsweexplainbelow,weconcludethatthethirdoptionismost8
consistentwithcongressionalintent.9
Weeliminatethefirstoptionwithease.The1952Actcontainsa10
severanceclausethatprovides:IfanyparticularprovisionofthisAct,orthe11
applicationthereoftoanypersonorcircumstance,isheldinvalid,the12
remainderoftheAct...shallnotbeaffectedthereby.1952Act406;cf.13
Nguyen,533U.S.at72([S]everanceisbasedontheassumptionthat14
Congresswouldhaveintendedtheresult.).Theclausemakesclearthatonly15
oneoftheprovisionsin1409,ratherthanboth,shouldbeseveredas16
constitutionallyinfirm.17
-
37
Werejectthesecondoptioncontracting,asopposedtoextending,the1
righttoderivativecitizenshipwithmorecircumspection.TheGovernment2
urgesustoadoptthisoption,arguingthatthealternativeallowsthe3
exceptionforunwedmotherstoswallowtherule,therebyinflictingmore4
damagetothestatuteslanguageandstructureandreflectingamoreradical5
changethanthe1952Congressintended.Thisargumentfailsfortworeasons.6
First,theargumentmisunderstandsourtask,whichisnottodevisethe7
cleanestwaytoalterthewordingandstructureofthestatute,butto8
determinewhatresultCongressintendedintheeventthecombinedstatutory9
provisionsweredeemedunconstitutional.Second,theGovernments10
argumentneglectsthehistoricalbackgroundagainstwhichCongressenacted11
therelevantprovisions.Althoughaclosecall,historydoesnotconvinceus12
thatthemembersofCongresspassingthe1952Actwouldhaveviewedthe13
extensionoftheoneyearrequirementasamoreradicalchangethanthe14
alternative,inwhichallunwedcitizenparentsmustsatisfythetenyearage15
calibratedrequirementiftheotherparentlackscitizenship.Tothecontrary,16
thetenyearrequirementforfathersandmarriedmothersimposedby17
Congressin1940appearstohaverepresentedasignificantdeparturefrom18
-
38
longestablishedhistoricalpractice.SeeRogers,401U.S.at82326(reviewing1
thehistoryofderivativecitizenshipstatutesfromtheActofMarch26,1790,12
Stat.103,throughthe1952Actandconcludingthatforthemostpart,each3
successivestatute,asappliedtoaforeignbornchildofoneUnitedStates4
citizenparent,movedinadirectionofleniencyforthechild).From19345
untiltheenactmentofthe1940Act,forexample,womenhadthestatutory6
righttoconfercitizenshipontheirforeignbornchildrenandwererequired7
merelytohaveresidedintheUnitedStatesforanydurationpriortothe8
childsbirth.Thesamebareminimumrequirementappliedtomenforthe9
vastmajorityofthetimesincethefounding,from1790until1940.Seeid.;10
Weedin,274U.S.at66467;ActofMay24,1934,ch.344,1993,48Stat.797;11
1940Act.Moreover,the1952Actsadditionofaoneyearcontinuous12
physicalpresencerequirementforunmarriedcitizenmothersrepresenteda13
relativelyminorchangeinthebaselineminimalresidencyrequirement14
applicabletoallmenandwomenpriorto1940.Ontheotherhand,ofcourse,15
werecognizethatthe1952Congress,presumablywiththebenefitofthislong16
history,neverthelessdecidedtoretainthetenyearresidencyrequirement.17
WhetherthisrelatedtotheemergenceoftheUnitedStatesasaworldpower18
-
39
afterWorldWarIIoranincreasingnumberofchildrenbornofmixed1
nationalityparents,orsomeothersetoffactors,wecannottellwith2
confidence.3
Neitherthetextnorthelegislativehistoryofthe1952Actisespecially4
helpfulorclearonthispoint,andultimatelywhattipsthebalanceforusis5
thebindingprecedentthatcautionsustoextendratherthancontractbenefits6
inthefaceofambiguouscongressionalintent.See,e.g.,Westcott,443U.S.at7
89(Inpreviouscasesinvolvingequalprotectionchallengestounderinclusive8
federalbenefitsstatutes,thisCourthassuggestedthatextension,ratherthan9
nullification,isthepropercourse.(citingJimenezv.Weinberger,417U.S.10
628,63738(1974),andFrontierov.Richardson,411U.S.677,691n.25(1973)11
(pluralityopinion)));Heckler,465U.S.at738,739n.5;Weinberger,420U.S.at12
64142,653;SotoLopezv.N.Y.C.CivilServ.Commn,755F.2d266,28081(2d13
Cir.1985).Indeed,weareunawareofasinglecaseinwhichtheSupreme14
Courthascontracted,ratherthanextended,benefitswhencuringanequal15
protectionviolationthroughseverance.16
Lastly,theGovernmentcontendsthat,ingivingMoralesSantanathe17
reliefheseeks,wearegrantingcitizenship,whichwelackthepowertodo.18
-
40
Thisargumentrestsonamistakenpremise.Althoughcourtshavenopower1
toconfercitizenshiponabasisotherthanthatprescribedbyCongress,2
Miller,523U.S.at453(Scalia,J.,concurring),MoralesSantanahasnotasked3
ustoconfercitizenship,andwedonotdoso.Instead,MoralesSantanaasks4
thatweexerciseourtraditionalremedialpowerssothatthestatute,freeof5
itsconstitutionaldefect,canoperatetodeterminewhethercitizenshipwas6
transmittedatbirth.Nguyen,533U.S.at9596(OConnor,J.,dissenting)7
(citingMiller,523U.S.at48889(Breyer,J.,dissenting));cf.id.at7374(Scalia,8
J.,concurring).Inotherwords,ifMoralesSantanaweretoprevail,the9
judgmentin[his]favorwouldconfirm[his]preexistingcitizenshiprather10
thangrant[him]rightsthat[he]doesnotnowpossess.Miller,523U.S.at11
432(opinionofStevens,J.).Correctingtheconstitutionaldefectherewouldat12
aminimumentailreplacingthetenyearphysicalpresencerequirementin13
1401(a)(7)(andincorporatedwithin1409(a))withtheoneyearcontinuous14
presencerequirementin1409(c).19Thealternativeremedysuggestedbythe15
19Asmodified,1401(a)(7)wouldread:
apersonbornoutsidethegeographicallimitsoftheUnitedStatesanditsoutlyingpossessionsofparentsoneofwhomisanalien,andtheotheracitizenoftheUnitedStateswho,priortothebirthofsuchperson,wasphysicallypresentinthe
-
41
Governmentthatallunwedparentsbesubjecttothemoreoneroustenyear1
requirementwouldprovenolesscontroversial:wehavenomorepowerto2
stripcitizenshipconferredbyCongressthantoconferit.Nor,finally,has3
Congressauthorizedustoavoidthequestion.See8U.S.C.1252(b)(5)(A)4
(IfthepetitionerclaimstobeanationaloftheUnitedStatesandthecourtof5
appealsfindsfromthepleadingsandaffidavitsthatnogenuineissueof6
materialfactaboutthepetitionersnationalityispresented,thecourtshall7
decidethenationalityclaim.(emphasisadded)).Conformingthe8
immigrationlawsCongressenactedwiththeConstitutionsguaranteeof9
equalprotection,weconcludethatMoralesSantanaisacitizenasofhisbirth.10
CONCLUSION11
Fortheforegoingreasons,weREVERSEtheBIAsdecisionand12
REMANDforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.13
UnitedStatesoritsoutlyingpossessionsforacontinuousperiodofoneyear:Provided,ThatanyperiodsofhonorableserviceintheArmedForcesoftheUnitedStatesbysuchcitizenparentmaybeincludedincomputingthephysicalpresencerequirementsofthisparagraph.
(firstemphasisaddedtoreflectchange).
