Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Morales-Santana v. Lynch
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS
FORTHESECONDCIRCUIT
AugustTerm,2012
(Argued:April1,2013 FinalSubmission:November14,2014
Decided:July8,2015)
DocketNo.111252ag
LUISRAMONMORALESSANTANA,AKALUISMORALES,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTAE.LYNCH,UNITEDSTATESATTORNEYGENERAL,*
Respondent.
Before:LOHIER,CARNEY,CircuitJudges,andRAKOFF,DistrictJudge.**
PetitionerLuisRamonMoralesSantanaseeksreviewofaBoardof
ImmigrationAppeals(BIA)decisiondenyinghismotiontoreopenhis
PursuanttoFederalRuleofAppellateProcedure43(c)(2),AttorneyGeneral
LorettaE.LynchisautomaticallysubstitutedforformerAttorneyGeneral
EricH.Holder,Jr.asRespondent.
**TheHonorableJedS.Rakoff,oftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtforthe
SouthernDistrictofNewYork,sittingbydesignation.
*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
removalproceedingstoevaluatehisclaimofderivativecitizenship.Under
thestatuteineffectwhenMoralesSantanawasborn,Immigrationand
NationalityActof1952, 301(a)(7),309(a),(c)(codifiedat8U.S.C.
1401(a)(7),1409(a),(c)(1952)),MoralesSantanasfathersatisfiedthe
physicalpresencerequirementsfortransmittingcitizenshipapplicableto
unwedcitizenmothersbutnotthemorestringentrequirementsapplicableto
unwedcitizenfathers.Onappeal,MoralesSantanaarguesprincipallythat
thisstatutoryschemeviolatestheFifthAmendmentsguaranteeofequal
protection,andthattheproperremedyistoextendtounwedfathersthe
benefitsunwedmothersreceiveunderthestatute.Weagreeandholdthat
MoralesSantanaderivedcitizenshipatbirththroughhisfather.We
accordinglyREVERSEtheBIAsdecisionandREMANDforfurther
proceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.
STEPHENA.BROOME(EllydeRokoand
JacobWaldman,onthebrief),Quinn
EmanuelUrquhart&Sullivan,LLP,
NewYork,NY,forPetitioner.
IMRANR.ZAIDI,Attorney,Officeof
ImmigrationLitigation,CivilDivision,
U.S.DepartmentofJustice,Washington,
DC(StuartDelery,ActingAssistant
AttorneyGeneral,StephenJ.Flynn,
AssistantDirector,Officeof
ImmigrationLitigation,CivilDivision,
KathrynM.McKinney,Attorney,Office
ofImmigrationLitigation,Civil
Division,onthebrief),forRespondent.
LOHIER,CircuitJudge:
32
LuisRamonMoralesSantanaasksustoreviewaMarch3,2011
33
decisionoftheBoardofImmigrationAppeals(BIA)denyinghismotionto
reopenhisremovalproceedingsrelatingtohisclaimofderivative
citizenship.UnderthestatuteineffectwhenMoralesSantanawasbornthe
ImmigrationandNationalityActof1952(the1952Act)achildborn
abroadtoanunwedcitizenmotherandnoncitizenfatherhascitizenshipat
birthsolongasthemotherwaspresentintheUnitedStatesoroneofits
outlyingpossessionsforacontinuousperiodofatleastoneyearatsome
pointpriortothechildsbirth.See1952Act,309(c),66Stat.163,23839
(codifiedat8U.S.C.1409(c)(1952)).1Bycontrast,achildbornabroadtoan
unwedcitizenfatherandnoncitizenmotherhascitizenshipatbirthonlyif
10
thefatherwaspresentintheUnitedStatesoroneofitsoutlyingpossessions
11
priortothechildsbirthforaperiodorperiodstotalingatleasttenyears,
12
withatleastfiveofthoseyearsoccurringaftertheageoffourteen.Seeid.
13
309(a)(codifiedat8U.S.C.1409(a)(1952));seealsoid.301(a)(7)(codified
14
at8U.S.C.1401(a)(7)(1952)).2MoralesSantanasfathersatisfiedthe
Unlessotherwisenoted,referencesto1401and1409aretothosesections
astheyappearinthe1952Act,andreferencestootherstatutoryprovisions
aretothosesectionsastheyappearinthecurrentcodification.
2Section1401(a)(7)provided:
ThefollowingshallbenationalsandcitizensoftheUnitedStatesat
birth:...apersonbornoutsidethegeographicallimitsoftheUnited
1
requirementsfortransmittingcitizenshipapplicabletounwedmothersbut
notthemorestringentrequirementsapplicabletounwedfathers.Onappeal,
MoralesSantanaarguesprincipallythatthisgenderbaseddifferenceviolates
theFifthAmendmentsguaranteeofequalprotectionandthattheproper
remedyistoextendtounwedfathersthebenefitsunwedmothersreceive
under1409(c).WeagreeandholdthatMoralesSantanaderivedcitizenship
atbirththroughhisfather.WeaccordinglyREVERSEtheBIAsdecisionand
REMANDforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.
Statesanditsoutlyingpossessionsofparentsoneofwhomisanalien,
andtheotheracitizenoftheUnitedStateswho,priortothebirthof
suchperson,wasphysicallypresentintheUnitedStatesoritsoutlying
possessionsforaperiodorperiodstotalingnotlessthantenyears,at
leastfiveofwhichwereafterattainingtheageoffourteenyears....
Section1409(a)providedthat1401(a)(7)shallapplyasofthedateofbirth
toachildbornoutofwedlockonoraftertheeffectivedateofthisAct,
providedthatpaternityisestablishedbylegitimationbeforethechildturns
21.Section1409(c)provided:
Notwithstandingtheprovisionofsubsection(a)ofthissection,a
personborn,onoraftertheeffectivedateofthisAct,outsidetheUnited
Statesandoutofwedlockshallbeheldtohaveacquiredatbirththe
nationalitystatusofhismother,ifthemotherhadthenationalityofthe
UnitedStatesatthetimeofsuchpersonsbirth,andifthemotherhad
previouslybeenphysicallypresentintheUnitedStatesoroneofits
outlyingpossessionsforacontinuousperiodofoneyear.
4
BACKGROUND
1
2
I.Facts
Thefollowingundisputedfactsaredrawnfromtherecordonappeal.
MoralesSantanasfather,JoseDoloresMorales,wasborninPuertoRicoon
March19,1900andacquiredUnitedStatescitizenshipin1917pursuanttothe
JonesAct.SeeJonesActofPuertoRico,ch.145,39Stat.951(codifiedat8
U.S.C.1402(1917)).HewasphysicallypresentinPuertoRicountilFebruary
27,1919,20daysbeforehisnineteenthbirthday,whenheleftPuertoRicoto
workintheDominicanRepublicfortheSouthPortoRicoSugarCompany.
10
In1962MoralesSantanawasbornintheDominicanRepublictohis
11
fatherandhisDominicanmother.MoralesSantanawaswhatisstatutorily
12
describedaslegitimat[ed]byhisfatheruponhisparentsmarriagein1970
13
andadmittedtotheUnitedStatesasalawfulpermanentresidentin1975.
14
8U.S.C.1409(a).MoralesSantanasfatherdiedin1976.
15
II.StatutoryFramework
16
Unlikecitizenshipbynaturalization,derivativecitizenshipexistsasofa
17
childsbirthornotatall.See8U.S.C.1409(a),(c);cf.id.1101(a)(23).The
18
lawineffectatthetimeofbirthgovernswhetherachildobtainedderivative
citizenshipasofhisorherbirth.SeeAshtonv.Gonzales,431F.3d95,97(2d
Cir.2005).Accordingly,the1952Actprovidesthestatutoryframework
applicabletoMoralesSantanasnationalityclaim.
Asnoted,the1952Actlimitstheabilityofanunwedcitizenfatherto
4
5
confercitizenshiponhischildbornabroadwherethechildsmotherisnota
citizenatthetimeofthechildsbirthmorestringentlythanitlimitsthe
abilityofasimilarlysituatedunwedcitizenmothertodothesame.Compare
8U.S.C.1401(a)(7),withid.1409(c).3Wenotethatthisdifferencein
treatmentofunwedcitizenfathersandunwedcitizenmothers,though
10
diminished,persistsinthecurrentstatute.Compare8U.S.C.1409(a)(2012)
11
(applyingtounwedcitizenfathers1401(g),whichrequiresfiveyearsof
12
physicalpresence,twoofwhichmustbeafteragefourteen),withid.1409(c)
13
(maintainingthe1952Actsconferralofderivativecitizenshipbasedonan
Inadditiontosatisfyingtherequirementsof1401(a)(7),thefathermust
establishhispaternitythroughlegitimationofthechildbeforethechildturns
21.See8U.S.C.1409(a).Asbothpartiesagree,MoralesSantanasfather
legitimatedhissonin1970.MoralesSantanadoesnotcontestthestatutes
legitimationrequirement,andthatrequirementisnotatissueonappeal.See
Nguyenv.INS,533U.S.53(2001)(upholdingasconstitutionalthesimilar
legitimationrequirementfoundinthecurrentversionofthestatute,8U.S.C.
1409(a)(4)(2000)).
3
unwedmotherscontinuousphysicalpresenceforoneyearatanytimeprior
tothechildsbirth).
III.ProceduralHistory
In2000MoralesSantanawasplacedinremovalproceedingsafter
havingbeenconvictedofvariousfelonies.Heappliedforwithholdingof
removalonthebasisofderivativecitizenshipobtainedthroughhisfather.An
immigrationjudgedeniedtheapplication.In2010MoralesSantanafileda
motiontoreopenbasedonaviolationofequalprotectionandnewlyobtained
evidencerelatingtohisfather.TheBIArejectedMoralesSantanas
10
11
argumentsforderivativecitizenshipanddeniedhismotiontoreopen.
DISCUSSION
12
MoralesSantanamakesfourargumentsforderivativecitizenship:
13
(1)thathisfathersphysicalabsencefromtheUnitedStatesduringthe20
14
daysdirectlypriortohisfathersnineteenthbirthdayconstitutedade
15
minimisgapinphysicalpresence,andthatsuchgapsshouldnotcount
16
againstafindingofphysicalpresenceforpurposesof1401(a)(7);(2)thatthe
17
SouthPortoRicoSugarCompany,whichemployedhisfatherafterhisfather
18
movedtotheDominicanRepublic,wasamultinationalUnitedStatesowned
companyandthereforeeffectivelypartoftheUnitedStatesgovernmentoran
internationalorganizationasdefinedin22U.S.C.288,see1966Actto
AmendtheImmigrationandNationalityAct(the1966Act),80Stat.1322
(codifiedat8U.S.C.1401(a)(7)(1966))(countingperiodsofemploymentfor
certainorganizationstowardthestatutesphysicalpresencerequirements);(3)
thatatthetimehisfathermovedtotheDominicanRepublicitwasan
outlyingpossessionoftheUnitedStates;and(4)asnoted,thatthedifferent
physicalpresencerequirementsapplicabletounwedfathersandunwed
mothersunderthe1952Actviolateequalprotection.
10
Consistentwithourobligationtoavoidconstitutionalquestionsif
11
possible,wefirstaddressMoralesSantanasthreestatutoryargumentsfor
12
derivativecitizenship.SeeEscambiaCnty.,Fla.v.McMillan,466U.S.48,51
13
(1984)(percuriam).
14
Astobothhisstatutoryandconstitutionalarguments,wereviewde
15
novothequestionofMoralesSantanasderivativecitizenship.SeePhong
16
ThanhNguyenv.Chertoff,501F.3d107,111(2dCir.2007).Ifthepetitioner
17
claimstobeanationaloftheUnitedStatesandthecourtofappealsfinds
18
fromthepleadingsandaffidavitsthatnogenuineissueofmaterialfactabout
thepetitionersnationalityispresented,thecourtshalldecidethenationality
claim.8U.S.C.1252(b)(5)(A).Nomaterialfactsaredisputed.
I.StatutoryArguments
MoralesSantanacontendsthathisfathersabsencefromtheUnited
Statesduringthe20dayspriortohisfathersnineteenthbirthdayconstitutes
ademinimisgapinhisfathersphysicalpresenceandthatsuchgaps
shouldnotbeheldagainstsomeonewhoclaimstohavesatisfiedthe1952
Actsphysicalpresencerequirement.Insupport,MoralesSantanapointsto
continuousphysicalpresencerequirementsundertheimmigrationlawsthat
10
explicitlyexcusedeminimisabsences.See,e.g.,id.1229b(b)(1)(A),(d)(2)
11
(2012)(absencesof90continuousdaysorfewerdonotbreakcontinuityof
12
physicalpresenceforpurposesofcancellationofremovalforalawful
13
permanentresident.);id.1255(l)(3),1255a(a)(3)(B).Byitsplainterms,
14
1401(a)(7)hadnosimilarexception.Inanyevent,becauseMorales
15
SantanasfatherlefttheUnitedStatesanditsoutlyingpossessions20days
16
priortohisnineteenthbirthdayandneverreturned,therewasnogapinhis
17
fathersphysicalpresencethatbridgedtwoperiodsofphysicalpresence.So
18
evenifwerecognizedanexceptiontothephysicalpresencerequirementin
1401fordeminimisgaps,wewouldrejectMoralesSantanasclaimon
thisbasis.
Relyingonthe1966Act,MoralesSantananextarguesthathisfathers
employmentwiththeSouthPortoRicoSugarCompanyintheDominican
RepublicimmediatelyafterleavingPuertoRicosatisfiedthestatutesphysical
presencerequirementbyeffectivelycontinuinghisphysicalpresencethrough
therequisiteperiod.Itistruethatthe1966Actprovidedthatemployment
withtheUnitedStatesGovernmentorwithaninternationalorganization,as
definedin22U.S.C.288,satisfiedthephysicalpresencerequirement.See
10
8U.S.C.1401(a)(7)(1966).ButMoralesSantanasargumentlacksmerit
11
becausehisfathersemploymentwiththeSouthPortoRicoSugarCompany,a
12
multinationalcompany,didnotconstituteemploymentwiththeUnited
13
StatesGovernment.SeeDrozdv.INS,155F.3d81,86(2dCir.1998).Nordid
14
itconstituteemploymentwithaninternationalorganizationasdefinedin
15
22U.S.C.288,sincetheSouthPortoRicoSugarCompanywasneithera
16
publicinternationalorganizationinwhichtheUnitedStatesparticipates
17
pursuanttoanytreatyorundertheauthorityofanyActofCongress
10
authorizingsuchparticipationormakinganappropriationforsuch
participation,nordesignatedbythePresidentassuch.22U.S.C.288.
Ashisfinalstatutoryargument,MoralesSantanacontendsthatthe
3
4
DominicanRepublicwasanoutlyingpossessionoftheUnitedStatesfor
purposesofthe1952ActwhenMoralesSantanasfatherwastherein1919.
TwofactorsconvinceusthatCongressdidnotintendtoincludethe
DominicanRepublicwithinthescopeofthetermoutlyingpossessionin
1401.4
First,thereisnotreatyorleasepursuanttowhichtheDominican
9
10
Republicwasacquired.ThisstandsincontrasttothePhilippines,Guam,
11
PuertoRico,andtheU.S.VirginIslands,allofwhichwereacquiredbythe
12
UnitedStatesbytreaty,seeTreatyofPeacebetweentheUnitedStatesandthe
13
KingdomofSpain,30Stat.1754(1899);ConventionbetweentheUnitedStates
14
andDenmark,39Stat.1706(1917),andallofwhichwereoutlyingpossessions
15
whentheUnitedStatesexercisedsovereigntyoverthem,seeMatterofV,9I.
CongressdidnotdefineoutlyingpossessionsuntiltheNationalityActof
1940,whichdefinedoutlyingpossessionsasallterritory...overwhich
theUnitedStatesexercisesrightsofsovereignty,excepttheCanalZone.See
101(e),54Stat.1137(codifiedat8U.S.C.501(e)(1940)).The1952Act
definedthetermtoincludeonlyAmericanSamoaandSwainsIsland.
101(a)(29),66Stat.170(codifiedat8U.S.C.1101(a)(29)(1952)).
4
11
&N.Dec.558,561(1962);MatterofY,7I.&N.Dec.667,668(1958).The
caseofGuantanamoBay,Cubaisalittledifferentinthatitinvolvesbotha
leaseandatreaty,butityieldsthesameresultvisvistheDominican
Republic.InBoumedienev.Bush,553U.S.723(2008),theSupremeCourt
determinedthatthecompletejurisdictionandcontrolbytheUnitedStates
overGuantanamoBayconstituteddefactosovereigntyoverit.Id.at75355
(quotationmarksomitted).TheCourtadded,though,thatina1903Lease
AgreementbetweenCubaandtheUnitedStates,theformergrantedthelatter
completejurisdictionandcontroloverGuantanamoBayandthat[u]nder
10
thetermsof[a]1934[t]reaty,...Cubaeffectivelyhasnorightsasasovereign
11
untilthepartiesagreetomodificationofthe1903LeaseAgreementorthe
12
UnitedStatesabandonsGuantanamoBay.Id.at753.Bycontrast,thereisno
13
leaseortreatythatconferredtotheUnitedStatesdefactoordejure
14
sovereigntyovertheDominicanRepublic.
15
Second,weacknowledgethehistoricalfactthattheUnitedStates
16
exercisedsignificantcontrolduringitsmilitaryoccupationoftheDominican
17
Republicfrom1916to1924.SeeIngenioPorvenirC.PorA.v.UnitedStates,
18
70Ct.Cl.735,738(1930).Butthatcontroldidnotextinguishthesovereignty
12
oftheDominicanRepublic.Indeed,theProclamationoftheMilitary
OccupationofSantoDomingobytheUnitedStatesspecificallydeclaredthat
thepurposeofthetemporarymilitaryoccupationwastogiveaidto[the
DominicanRepublic]inreturningtoaconditionofinternalorderwithout
destroyingthesovereigntyoftheDominicanRepublic.11Supp.Am.J.
IntlL.94,9496(1917)(Nov.29,1916Proclamation);seealsoBruceJ.Calder,
TheImpactofIntervention:TheDominicanRepublicDuringtheU.S.
Occupationof19161924xxvii,17,205(2ded.2006).
HavingrejectedMoralesSantanasstatutoryargumentsforderivative
10
citizenship,wenowconsiderhisconstitutionalequalprotectionargument.
11
II.EqualProtection
12
MoralesSantanaarguesprincipallythatthe1952Actstreatmentof
13
derivativecitizenshipconferralrightsviolatestheFifthAmendments
14
guaranteeofequalprotection.5Aswehaveexplained,underthe1952Act,an
MoralesSantanahasstandingtoassertthisequalprotectionclaimonbehalf
ofhisfathersinceMoralesSantanaallegesthathisfathersufferedaninjuryin
fact,thathisfatherbearsacloserelationtohim,andthathisfathersabilityto
asserthisowninterestsishinderedbecausehisfatherisdeceased.See
Campbellv.Louisiana,523U.S.392,397(1998)(citingPowersv.Ohio,499
U.S.400,411(1991));seealsoMillerv.Albright,523U.S.420,433(1998)
5
13
unwedcitizenmotherconfershercitizenshiponherchild(bornabroadtoa
noncitizenbiologicalfather)solongasshehassatisfiedtheoneyear
continuouspresencerequirementpriortothechildsbirth.Thesingleyearof
presencebythemothercanoccuratanytimepriortothechildsbirth
including,forexample,fromthemothersfirstbirthdayuntilhersecond
birthday.Anunwedcitizenfather,bycontrast,facesmuchmorestringent
requirementsunder8U.S.C.1409(a),whichincorporates1401(a)(7).Heis
preventedfromtransmittinghiscitizenship(tohischildbornabroadtoa
noncitizenmother)unlesshewasphysicallypresentintheUnitedStatesor
10
anoutlyingpossessionpriortothechildsbirthforatotalofatleastten
11
years.6Becausefiveofthoseyearsmustfollowthefathersfourteenth
12
birthday,anunwedcitizenfathercannottransmithiscitizenshiptohischild
13
bornabroadtoanoncitizenmotherbeforethefathersnineteenthbirthday.
14
Eighteenyearoldcitizenfathersandtheirchildrenareoutofluck.
(opinionofStevens,J.);id.at44950(OConnor,J.,concurring);id.at454n.1
(Scalia,J.,concurring);id.at473(Breyer,J.,dissenting).
6Asnoted,thefathermustalsosatisfyalegitimationrequirement.See8
U.S.C.1409(a).
14
Asbothpartiesagree,hadMoralesSantanasmother,ratherthanhis
father,beenacitizencontinuouslypresentinPuertoRicountil20daysprior
tohernineteenthbirthday,shewouldhavesatisfiedtherequirementsto
conferderivativecitizenshiponherchild.Itisthisgenderbaseddifferencein
treatmentthatMoralesSantanaclaimsviolatedhisfathersrighttoequal
protection.
TheGovernmentassertsthatthedifferenceisjustifiedbytwointerests:
(1)ensuringasufficientconnectionbetweencitizenchildrenandtheUnited
States,and(2)avoidingstatelessness.Inwhatfollows,weapplyintermediate
10
scrutinytoassesstheseassertedinterests,andweconcludethatneither
11
interestisadvancedbythestatutesgenderbasedphysicalpresence
12
requirements.Afterdeterminingthatthesephysicalpresencerequirements
13
violateequalprotection,weapplythestatutesseveranceclauseand
14
determinethatMoralesSantana,underthestatutestrippedofits
15
constitutionaldefect,hascitizenshipasofhisbirth.
16
17
18
A.LevelofScrutiny
Weapplyintermediate,heightenedscrutinytolawsthatdiscriminate
onthebasisofgender.UnitedStatesv.Virginia,518U.S.515,53133(1996).
15
Underintermediatescrutiny,thegovernmentclassificationmustserveactual
andimportantgovernmentalobjectives,andthediscriminatorymeans
employedmustbesubstantiallyrelatedtotheachievementofthose
objectives.Nguyenv.INS,533U.S.53,68(2001);Virginia,518U.S.at533.
Furthermore,thejustificationforthechallengedclassificationmustbe
genuine,nothypothesizedorinventedposthocinresponsetolitigation.And
itmustnotrelyonoverbroadgeneralizationsaboutthedifferenttalents,
capacities,orpreferencesofmalesandfemales.Virginia,518U.S.at533.
Inurgingustoapplyrationalbasisscrutinyinstead,theGovernment
10
reliesonFiallov.Bell,430U.S.787(1977).InFiallo,theSupremeCourt
11
appliedrationalbasisscrutinytoasectionofthe1952Actthatgavespecial
12
preferenceforadmissionintotheUnitedStatestononcitizensbornoutof
13
wedlockseekingentrybyvirtueofarelationshipwiththeircitizenmothers,
14
butnottosimilarlysituatednoncitizensseekingentrybyvirtueofa
15
relationshipwiththeircitizenfathers.Seeid.at798.TheCourtreasonedthat
16
rationalbasisscrutinywaswarrantedbecauseovernoconceivablesubjectis
17
thelegislativepowerofCongressmorecompletethanitisovertheadmission
18
ofaliens,and[o]urcaseshavelongrecognizedthepowertoexpelor
16
excludealiensasafundamentalsovereignattributeexercisedbythe
Governmentspoliticaldepartments.Id.at792(emphasesadded)(quotation
marksomitted);seealsoKleindienstv.Mandel,408U.S.753,766(1972)
(Congresshasplenarypowertomakerulesfortheadmissionandexclusion
ofnoncitizens.(quotationmarksomitted)).
ButFialloisdistinguishable.InFiallo,thechildrensalienage
implicatedCongresssexceptionallybroadpowertoadmitorremovenon
citizens.Fiallo,430U.S.at794.Here,bycontrast,thereisnosimilarissueof
alienagethatwouldtriggerspecialdeference.BecauseMoralesSantana
10
insteadclaimspreexistingcitizenshipatbirth,hischallengedoesnot
11
implicateCongressspowertoadmitorexcludeforeigners,id.at795n.6,
12
andthereforeisnotgovernedbyFiallo.
13
OurviewofFialloslimitedscopeisgroundedinSupremeCourtand
14
circuitcaselaw.Asaninitialmatter,wenotethattheSupremeCourthas
15
neverappliedthedeferentialFiallostandardtoissuesofgender
16
discriminationunder1409,despitebeingaskedtodosoonatleastthree
17
occasions.SeeMillerv.Albright,523U.S.420(1998)(decliningtoapply
18
Fiallo);Nguyenv.INS,533U.S.53(2001)(applyingheightenedscrutiny);
17
UnitedStatesv.FloresVillar,131S.Ct.2312(2011)(percuriam)(affirming
withoutopinionbydivided44vote).JusticeStevensopinioninMiller
succinctlydescribedFialloslimitation:Itisofsignificancethatthe
petitionerinthiscase,unlikethepetitionersinFiallo,...isnotchallenging
thedenialofanapplicationforspecial[immigration]status.Sheiscontesting
theGovernmentsrefusalto...treatherasacitizen.Ifsheweretoprevail,
thejudgment...wouldconfirmherpreexistingcitizenship.Miller,523U.S.
at432(pluralityopinion);seealsoid.at429(Fiallo...involvedtheclaimsof
...alienstoaspecialimmigrationpreference,whereasherepetitionerclaims
10
thatsheis,andforyearshasbeen,anAmericancitizen.).
11
AlthoughnoopinioninMillerreceivedamajorityofvotes,we
12
observedinLakev.RenothatsevenjusticesinMillerwouldhaveapplied
13
heightenedscrutiny...[toINA]section309(a).226F.3d141,148(2dCir.
14
2000),vacatedsubnom.Ashcroftv.Lake,533U.S.913(2001)(citingNguyen),
15
abrogatedonothergroundsbyLakev.Ashcroft,43F.Appx417,418(2dCir.
16
2002).Later,inLewisv.Thompson,weexplainedLakesholdinginaway
17
thatmakesitclearthatheightenedscrutiny,ratherthanFiallosmore
18
deferentialstandardofreview,shouldapplytoMoralesSantanasclaim:
18
[W]ehavealreadyheldinLake,drawinganinferencefromthevarious
opinionsoftheJusticesinMiller,thatcitizenclaimantswithanequal
protectionclaimdeservingofheightenedscrutinydonotlosethatfavorable
formofreviewsimplybecausethecasearisesinthecontextofimmigration.
252F.3d567,591(2dCir.2001);seealsoid.at590(AswerecognizedinLake,
Fialloitselfmadeclearthatthereducedthresholdofjustificationfor
governmentalactionthatappliedtoimmigrantsdidnotapplytocitizens.
(emphasisadded)(quotationmarksomitted)).Oursistercircuitsthathave
consideredFiallosapplicationtoclaimssimilartoMoralesSantanasarein
10
accord.SeeNguyenv.INS,208F.3d528,535(5thCir.2000)(notingthatthe
11
statuteinFiallodealtwiththeclaimsofaliensforspecialimmigration
12
preferencesforaliens,whereasthepetitionersclaiminthiscaseisthatheisa
13
citizen),affd,533U.S.53(2001);Breyerv.Meissner,214F.3d416,425(3d
14
Cir.2000)(applyingheightenedscrutinyto1993oftheRevisedStatutesof
15
1874,apredecessorto1409,becauseitcreatedagenderclassificationwith
16
respectto[petitioners]mothersabilitytopasshercitizenshiptoherforeign
17
bornchildathisbirth);UnitedStatesv.AhumadaAguilar,189F.3d1121,
18
1126(9thCir.1999)(applyingMillertof[i]nd1409(a)(4)unconstitutionalby
19
applyingheightenedscrutiny),vacated,533U.S.913(2001)(citingNguyen),
abrogatedonothergroundsby295F.3d943(9thCir.2002);cf.UnitedStates
v.FloresVillar,536F.3d990,996n.2(9thCir.2008)(LiketheSupremeCourt
inNguyen,wewillassumethatintermediatescrutinyapplies.),affdbyan
equallydividedCourt,131S.Ct.2312.
Forthesereasons,weconcludethatthegenderbasedschemein1401
and1409canbeupheldonlyiftheGovernmentshowsthatitissubstantially
relatedtoanactualandimportantgovernmentalobjective.SeeVirginia,518
U.S.at531,533,53536;Miss.Univ.forWomenv.Hogan,458U.S.718,724
10
(1982).Inassessingthevalidityofthegenderbasedclassification,moreover,
11
weconsidertheexistenceofgenderneutralalternativestotheclassification.
12
See,e.g.,Wenglerv.DruggistsMut.Ins.Co.,446U.S.142,151(1980);Orrv.
13
Orr,440U.S.268,281(1979);Weinbergerv.Wiesenfeld,420U.S.636,653
14
(1975).
B.GovernmentalInterestsandTailoring
15
16
Havingdeterminedthatintermediatescrutinyapplies,weexaminethe
17
twointereststhattheGovernmentclaimssupportthestatutesgenderbased
18
distinction.
20
1
2
3
4
1. EnsuringaSufficientConnectionBetweentheChild
andtheUnitedStates
TheGovernmentassertsthatCongresspassedthe1952Actsphysical
presencerequirementsinordertoensur[e]thatforeignbornchildrenof
parentsofdifferentnationalitieshaveasufficientconnectiontotheUnited
Statestowarrantcitizenship.RespondentsBr.3839.Asbothpartiesagree,
thisinterestisimportant,andCongressactuallyhaditinmindwhen
requiringsomeperiodofphysicalpresencebeforeacitizenparentcould
10
confercitizenshiponhisorherchildbornabroad.SeePetitionersBr.35n.17
11
(citingWeedinv.ChinBow,274U.S.657,66667(1927)).
12
TheGovernmentinvokesthisimportantinterestbutfailstojustifythe
13
1952Actsdifferenttreatmentofmothersandfathersbyreferencetoit.It
14
offersnoreason,andweseenoreason,thatunwedfathersneedmoretime
15
thanunwedmothersintheUnitedStatespriortotheirchildsbirthinorderto
16
assimilatethevaluesthatthestatuteseekstoensurearepassedontocitizen
17
childrenbornabroad.
18
Werecognizethatourdeterminationconflictswiththedecisionofthe
19
NinthCircuitinFloresVillar,536F.3d990,whichaddressedthesame
20
statutoryprovisionsanddiscussedthesamegovernmentalinterestin
21
ensuringaconnectionbetweenchildandcountry.TheNinthCircuit
concludedthatinadditiontopreventingorreducingstatelessnessan
objectiveweaddressbelow[t]heresidencedifferential...furthersthe
objectiveofdevelopingatiebetweenthechild,hisorherfather,andthis
country.FloresVillar,536F.3dat997.TheNinthCircuitprovidedno
explanationforitsconclusion,andtheGovernmentprovidesnonehere.
Instead,theGovernmentreliesonNguyentoexplainwhythedifferent
physicalpresencerequirementsforunwedmenandwomenreflectaconcern
withensuringanadequateconnectionbetweenthechildandtheUnited
10
States.Wearenotpersuaded.InNguyen,theCourtupheldtheImmigration
11
andNationalityActsrequirementthatacitizenfatherseekingtoconfer
12
derivativecitizenshiponhisforeignbornchildtaketheaffirmativestepof
13
eitherlegitimatingthechild,declaringpaternityunderoath,orobtaininga
14
courtorderofpaternity.7SeeNguyen,533U.S.at62;8U.S.C.1409(a)(4)
15
(2000).TheNguyenCourtdeterminedthattwointerestssupportedthe
16
legitimationrequirementforcitizenfathersofchildrenbornabroad.
Forbrevity,werefertotheseasconstitutingalegitimationrequirement,
thoughlegitimationisjustoneofthreewaysofsatisfyingthestatutory
provision.
7
22
Thefirstinterest,assuringthatabiologicalparentchildrelationship
exists,Nguyen,533U.S.at62;seeMiller,523U.S.at43536,isirrelevantto
the1952Actsphysicalpresencerequirementsbecausederivativecitizenship
separatelyrequiresunwedcitizenfatherstohavelegitimatedtheirforeign
bornchildren.Here,MoralesSantanasfatherestablishedhisbiologicaltieto
MoralesSantanabylegitimatinghim.HisphysicalpresenceinPuertoRico
fortenyearsasopposedtooneyearpriortoMoralesSantanasbirthwould
haveprovidednoadditionalassurancethatabiologicaltieexisted.
TheNguyenCourtidentifiedasecondinterestinensuringthatthe
10
childandthecitizenparenthavesomedemonstratedopportunityorpotential
11
todevelopareal,meaningfulrelationship.Nguyen,533U.S.at6465.The
12
Courtexplainedthatabiologicalmother,byvirtueofgivingbirthtothechild,
13
knowsthatthechildisinbeingandishers,butthatanunwedbiological
14
fathermightinsomecasesnotevenknowthatachildwasconceived,noris
15
italwaysclearthateventhemotherwillbesureofthefathersidentity.Id.
16
at65.Ratherthanrequiringacasebycaseanalysisofwhetherafatherora
17
motherhasareal,meaningfulrelationshipwithachildbornabroad,
18
Congressenactedaneasilyadministeredschemetopromotethedifferent
23
butstillsubstantialinterestofensuringatleastanopportunityforaparent
childrelationshiptodevelop.Id.at69.Thisinterestinensuringthe
opportunityforareal,meaningfulrelationshipbetweenparentandchildis
likewisenotrelevanttothe1952Actsphysicalpresencerequirements.By
legitimatinghisson,MoralesSantanasfathertooktheaffirmativestepof
demonstratingthatanopportunityforameaningfulrelationshipexisted.
Andagain,requiringthatMoralesSantanasfatherbephysicallypresentin
PuertoRicopriortoMoralesSantanasbirthfortenyearsinsteadofoneyear
wouldhavedonenothingtofurtherensurethatanopportunityforsucha
10
11
relationshipexisted.
Soweagreethatunwedmothersandfathersarenotsimilarlysituated
12
withrespecttothetwotypesofparenttochildtiesjustifyingthe
13
legitimationrequirementatissueinNguyen.Butunwedmothersandfathers
14
aresimilarlysituatedwithrespecttohowlongtheyshouldbepresentinthe
15
UnitedStatesoranoutlyingpossessionpriortothechildsbirthinorderto
16
haveassimilatedcitizenshiprelatedvaluestotransmittothechild.
17
Therefore,thestatutesgenderbaseddistinctionisnotsubstantiallyrelatedto
24
thegoalofensuringasufficientconnectionbetweencitizenchildrenandthe
UnitedStates.
3
4
2. PreventingStatelessness
HavingconcludedthattheGovernmentsinterestinestablishinga
connectionbetweentheforeignbornchildandtheUnitedStatesdoesnot
explainorjustifythegenderbaseddistinctioninthe1952Actsphysical
presencerequirements,wenowturntotheGovernmentsotherasserted
interest.TheGovernmentarguesthatCongressenacteddifferentphysical
presencerequirementsin1409(a)(incorporating1401(a)(7))and1409(c)
10
toreducethelevelofstatelessnessamongnewborns.Forexample,achild
11
bornoutofwedlockabroadmaybestatelessifheisborninsideacountrythat
12
doesnotconfercitizenshipbasedonplaceofbirthandneitherofthechilds
13
parentsconferredderivativecitizenshiponhim.
14
Theavoidanceofstatelessnessisclearlyanimportantgovernmental
15
interest.SeeKennedyv.MendozaMartinez,372U.S.144,16061(1963);Trop
16
v.Dulles,356U.S.86,102(1958)(pluralityopinion).Contrarytothe
17
Governmentsclaim,though,avoidanceofstatelessnessdoesnotappearto
18
havebeenCongresssactualpurposeinestablishingthephysicalpresence
25
requirementsinthe1952Act,seeVirginia,518U.S.at533,andinanyevent
thegenderbaseddistinctionsinthe1952Actsphysicalpresence
requirementsarenotsubstantiallyrelatedtothatobjective.
a.
ActualPurpose
SomehistoricalbackgroundisusefultounderstandCongressspurpose
5
6
inestablishingthe1952Actsgenderbasedphysicalpresencerequirements.
Until1940,acitizenfatherwhosechildwasbornabroadtransmittedhis
citizenshiptothatchildifthefatherhadresidedintheUnitedStatesforany
periodoftimepriortothechildsbirth.SeeRogersv.Bellei,401U.S.815,823
10
25(1971)(discussingtheActofMarch26,1790,1Stat.103,andsuccessive
11
statutes);ActofMay24,1934,ch.344,48Stat.797;NationalityActof1940(the
12
1940Act),ch.876,201(g),54Stat.1137,1139.Consistentwithcommon
13
lawnotionsofcoverture,andwiththenotionthatthehusbanddetermined
14
thepoliticalandculturalcharacterofhisdependents(wifeandchildren
15
included),priorto1934marriedwomenhadnostatutoryrighttoconfertheir
16
owncitizenship.8SeeBrief[of]AmiciCuriaeofProfessorsofHistory,
In1934Congressgrantedcitizenmothers,whethermarriedorunmarried,
therighttoconfercitizenshipontheirchildrenbornabroadifthemother
8
26
PoliticalScience,andLawinSupportofPetitionerat9,FloresVillarv.United
States,131S.Ct.2312(2010),2010WL2602009;CandiceLewisBredbenner,A
NationalityofHerOwn:Women,Marriage,andtheLawofCitizenship84
(1998).Butforunmarriedcitizenmothers,theStateDepartmentspractice
sinceatleast1912wastograntcitizenshiptotheirforeignbornchildrenon
thetheorythatanunmarriedmotherstandsintheplaceofthefatherandis
inanyeventboundtomaintain[thechild]asitsnaturalguardian.To
ReviseandCodifytheNationalityLawsoftheUnitedStatesIntoa
ComprehensiveNationalityCode:HearingBeforetheH.Comm.on
10
ImmigrationandNaturalization,76thCong.431(1945)(quotationmarks
11
omitted).
12
In1940Congressforthefirsttimeexplicitlyaddressedthesituationof
13
childrenbornoutofwedlock.ItenactedSection205ofthe1940Act,54Stat.
14
at113940,whichprovidedthatcitizenfathersandmarriedcitizenmothers
15
couldtransmitcitizenshiptotheirchildbornabroadonlyaftersatisfyingan
16
agecalibratedtenyearphysicalpresencerequirement,butthatunmarried
17
citizenmotherscouldconfercitizenshipiftheyhadresidedintheUnited
satisfiedthesameminimalresidencyrequirementapplicabletocitizen
fathers.SeeActofMay24,1934,ch.344,1,48Stat.797.
27
Statesatanypointpriortothechildsbirth.The1952Actretainedthisbasic
statutorystructure,thoughitimposedasomewhatmorestringent
requirementthatunmarriedmothershavebeenphysicallypresentinthe
UnitedStatesforacontinuousperiodofoneyearinordertoconfer
citizenship.8U.S.C.1409(c).
Neitherthecongressionalhearingsnortherelevantcongressional
reportsconcerningthe1940Actcontainanyreferencetotheproblemof
statelessnessforchildrenbornabroad.9Thecongressionalhearings
concerningthe1952Actaresimilarlysilentaboutstatelessnessasadriving
10
concern.10Notwithstandingtheabsenceofrelevantdiscussionconcerningthe
Cf.KristinA.Collins,IllegitimateBorders:JusSanguinisCitizenshipandthe
LegalConstructionofFamily,Race,andNation,123YaleL.J.2134,2205n.283
(2014)([I]nthemanyhundredsofpre1940administrativememosIhave
readthatdefendorexplainrecognitionofthenonmaritalforeignborn
childrenofAmericanmothersascitizens,Ihaveidentifiedexactlyonememo
byaU.S.officialthatmentionstheriskofstatelessnessfortheforeignborn
nonmaritalchildrenofAmericanmothersasaconcern.(citing
MemorandumfromGreenHackworth,OfficeoftheSolicitor,U.S.Deptof
State,toRichardFlournoy,OfficeoftheSolicitor,U.S.DeptofState(Aug.14,
1928)(onfilewithNationalArchivesandRecordsAdministration,Relevant
Group59,CentralDecimalFile131))).
10TheGovernmentdoesciteonecongressionalreportinwhichstatelessness
wasmentionedinconjunctionwiththe1952Act.ASenateReportdated
January29,1952mentionstheproblemofstatelessnessinexplainingwhythe
9
28
problemofstatelessnessforchildrenbornabroadinthelegislativehistory,
theGovernmentpointstotheExecutiveBranchsexplanatorycommentsto
Section204oftheproposednationalitycodethatCongresswouldultimately
enactasthe1940Act.See76thCong.431.Thesecommentsrefertoa1935
lawreviewarticleentitledAComparativeStudyofLawsRelatingto
NationalityatBirthandtoLossofNationality,29Am.J.IntlL.248(1935),by
DurwardV.Sandifer.11Accordingtothearticle,in1935approximatelythirty
1952Acteliminatedaprovisioninthe1940Actthathadconditionedacitizen
mothersabilitytotransmitnationalitytoherchildonthefathersfailureto
legitimatethechildpriortothechildseighteenthbirthday.See1940Act,
205,54Stat.at1140(Intheabsenceof...legitimationoradjudication
[duringthechildsminority],...thechildbornabroadtoanunmarried
citizenmothershallbeheldtohaveacquiredatbirth[themothers]
nationalitystatus.(emphasesadded)).The1952Acteliminatedthis
provision,allowingthemothertotransmitcitizenshipindependentofthe
fathersactions.S.Rep.No.1137,at39(1952)(Thisprovisionestablishing
thechildsnationalityasthatofthe[citizen]motherregardlessoflegitimation
orestablishmentofpaternityisnew.Itinsuresthatthechildshallhavea
nationalityatbirth.(emphasisadded)).
AlthoughtheReportreflectscongressionalawarenessofstatelessness
asaproblem,itdoesnotpurporttojustifythegenderbaseddistinctionsin
thephysicalpresenceprovisionsatissueinthisappeal.
11ContrarytotheGovernmentsassertion,theSandiferarticledoesnot
indicatethatitwasconductedbytheStateDepartment.Rather,Sandifer,
whoworkedattheStateDepartmentatthetimehewrotethearticle,explains
attheoutsetthathedecidedtowriteitatthesuggestionofacolleague,not
29
countrieshadstatutesassigningchildrenbornoutofwedlockthecitizenship
oftheirmother.Id.at258.Fromthecommentsandthearticle,the
GovernmenturgesustoinferthatCongresswasawarethereexisteda
substantialriskthatachildborntoanunwedU.S.citizenmotherinacountry
employing[lawsdeterminingcitizenshipbasedonlineage,ratherthanplace
ofbirth]wouldbestatelessatbirthunlessthemothercouldpassher
citizenshiptoherchild,andthatthisriskwasuniquetothechildrenof
unwedcitizenmothers.RespondentsMay8,2013Supp.Br.2,67.12
BasedonourreviewoftheExecutiveBranchsexplanatorycomments
10
andtheSandiferarticle,wedeclinetheGovernmentsinvitation.The
11
explanatorycommentsdonotmentionstatelessnessanddonotrefertothe
12
Sandiferarticlesdiscussionofstatelessness.Inanyevent,theSandiferarticle
13
itselfdoesnotsupporttheGovernmentsargumentthatthechildrenof
pursuanttoanofficialdirective.SeeSandifer,ComparativeStudy,29Am.J.
IntlL.at248.
12Inresponsetoourorderrequestingsupplementalbriefingontheissue,the
GovernmentwasunabletofurnishanyotherevidencethatCongressenacted
ortheExecutiveencouragedthe1940Actsorthe1952Actsgenderbased
physicalpresencerequirementsduetoconcernsaboutstatelessness.
30
unwedcitizenmothersfacedagreaterriskofstatelessnessthanthechildren
ofunwedcitizenfathers.
WhiletheExecutiveBranchscommentsignoretheproblemof
statelessness,theyarguablyreflectgenderbasedgeneralizationsconcerning
whowouldcareforandbeassociatedwithachildbornoutofwedlock.13
Othercontemporaryadministrativememorandasimilarlyignoretheriskof
statelessnessforchildrenbornoutofwedlockabroadtocitizenmothers.14
Insum,wediscernnoevidence(1)thatCongressenactedthe1952Acts
8
9
10
genderbasedphysicalpresencerequirementsoutofaconcernfor
statelessness,(2)thattheproblemofstatelessnesswasinfactgreaterfor
Thecommentsreflecttheviewthatthemotherisboundtomaintain
custodyandcontrolof...achild[bornoutofwedlock]asagainstthe
putativefatherasitsnaturalguardianandthat[t]hemother,asguardian
bynurture,hastherighttothecustodyandcontrolofherbastardchild.
76thCong.431(quotationmarksomitted);seealsoCollins,123YaleL.J.at
2205([T]hehistoricalrecordrevealsthatthepronouncedgenderasymmetry
ofthe[1940]NationalityActstreatmentofnonmaritalforeignbornchildren
ofAmericanmothersandfatherswasshapedbycontemporarymaternalist
normsregardingthemothersrelationshipwithhernonmaritalchildand
thefatherslackofsucharelationship.);id.at2203(quotingas
representativeofcontemporaryviewsaninternallettertoaStateDepartment
officialstatingthatasapracticalmatter,itiswellknownthatalmost
invariablyitisthemotherwhoconcernsherselfwith[thenonmarital]child).
14
SeeCollins,123YaleL.J.at2205n.283.
13
31
childrenofunwedcitizenmothersthanforchildrenofunwedcitizenfathers,
or(3)thatCongressbelievedthattheproblemofstatelessnesswasgreaterfor
childrenofunwedcitizenmothersthanforchildrenofunwedcitizenfathers.
WeconcludethatneitherreasonnorhistorysupportstheGovernments
contentionthatthe1952Actsgenderbasedphysicalpresencerequirements
weremotivatedbyaconcernforstatelessness,asopposedtoimpermissible
stereotyping.
8
9
10
11
b.
SubstantialRelationshipBetweenEndsand
Means
Evenassumingforthesakeofargumentthatpreventingstatelessness
12
wasCongresssactualmotivatingconcernwhenitenactedthephysical
13
presencerequirements,wearepersuadedbytheavailabilityofeffective
14
genderneutralalternativesthatthegenderbaseddistinctionbetween
15
1409(a)(incorporating1401(a)(7))and1409(c)cannotsurvive
16
intermediatescrutiny.SeeWengler,446U.S.at151(invalidatingagender
17
basedclassificationwhereagenderneutralapproachwouldservetheneeds
18
ofbothclasses);Orr,440U.S.at28283(Agenderbasedclassificationwhich,
19
ascomparedtoagenderneutralone,generatesadditionalbenefitsonlyfor
20
thoseithasnoreasontoprefercannotsurviveequalprotectionscrutiny.).
32
Asfarbackas1933,SecretaryofStateCordellHullproposedjustsucha
genderneutralalternativeinalettertotheChairmanoftheHouseCommittee
onImmigrationandNaturalization.SecretaryHullsuggestedthatthe
immigrationlawsberevisedtoobtaintheobjectiveofparitybetweenthe
sexesinnationalitymattersbyremov[ing]...discriminationbetween
mothersandfatherswithregardtothetransmissionofcitizenshipto
childrenbornabroad.Hullproposedthefollowinglanguage:
PROPOSEDAMENDMENT...
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
(d)Achildhereafterbornoutofwedlockbeyondthelimitsand
jurisdictionoftheUnitedStatesanditsoutlyingpossessionstoan
AmericanparentwhohasresidedintheUnitedStatesanditsoutlying
possessions,therebeingnootherlegalparentunderthelawofthe
placeofbirth,shallhavethenationalityofsuchAmericanparent.
LetterfromSecyHulltoChairmanDickstein(Mar.27,1933)(Respondents
16
May8,2013Supp.Br.Ex.B).15
AndunlikethelegitimationrequirementatissueinNguyen,which
17
18
couldbesatisfiedby,forexample,awrittenacknowledgmentofpaternity
In1936,anExecutiveBranchofficialwhoparticipatedindraftingthe1940
ActrecognizedthatSection204[ofthe1940Act]asdrawnupbythe
Committeeslightlydiscriminatesinfavorofwomen.LetterfromJohnJ.
ScanlontoRuthB.Shipley,U.S.DeptofState(Mar.7,1936)(PetitionersNov.
14,2014Supp.Br.Ex.4);seealsoCollins,123YaleL.J.at2235.
15
33
underoath,thephysicalpresencerequirementthatMoralesSantana
challengesimposesmorethanaminimalburdenonunwedcitizenfathers.
SeeNguyen,533U.S.at7071.Itaddstothelegitimationrequirementten
yearsofphysicalpresenceintheUnitedStates,fiveofwhichmustbeafterthe
ageoffourteen.Inourview,thisburdenonacitizenfathersrighttoconfer
citizenshiponhisforeignbornchildissubstantial.16
Forthesereasons,thegenderbaseddistinctionattheheartofthe1952
7
8
Actsphysicalpresencerequirementsisnotsubstantiallyrelatedtothe
achievementofapermissible,nonstereotypebasedobjective.17
Aswehavealreadynoted,theburdenisactuallyimpossibleforeighteen
yearoldunwedcitizenfatherstosatisfy.
17WenoteoncemorethatourconclusiondiffersfromthatoftheNinth
CircuitinFloresVillar.TheretheNinthCircuitassumed,subsilentio,that
Congresssenactmentofthephysicalpresencerequirementswasactually
motivatedbyconcernforreductionintheriskofstatelessness.Italso
nominallyassumed,withoutdeciding,thatintermediatescrutinyapplied.
See536F.3dat996&n.2.WedisagreewiththeNinthCircuitthatthe
Governmenthascarrieditsburdenofshowinganexceedinglypersuasive
justificationforthestatutesgenderbasedclassificationasameansof
addressingtheproblemofstatelessness.SeeKirchbergv.Feenstra,450U.S.
455,461(1981).TheGovernmenthasnotshownthattheproblemaroseor
wasperceivedtoarisemoreoftenwithcitizenmothersthanwithcitizen
fathersofchildrenbornoutofwedlockabroad.See,e.g.,Sandifer,
ComparativeStudy,29Am.J.IntlL.at254;BriefofAmiciCuriaeScholarson
16
34
1
2
3.Remedy
Wenowturntothemostvexingprobleminthiscase.Here,two
statutoryprovisions1409(c)and(a)18combinetoviolateequal
protection.Whatistheremedyforthisviolationofequalprotection,where
citizenshipisatstake?Ordinarily,whentherightinvokedisthattoequal
treatment,theappropriateremedyisamandateofequaltreatment,aresult
thatcanbeaccomplishedbywithdrawalofbenefitsfromthefavoredclassas
wellasbyextensionofbenefitstotheexcludedclass.Hecklerv.Mathews,
465U.S.728,740(1984)(emphasisomitted)(quotingIowaDesMoinesNatl
10
Bankv.Bennett,284U.S.239,247(1931));accordCalifanov.Westcott,443
11
U.S.76,89(1979).
12
Asweseeit,equaltreatmentmightbeachievedinanyoneofthree
13
ways:(1)strikingboth1409(c)and(a)entirely;(2)severingtheoneyear
14
continuouspresenceprovisionin1409(c)andrequiringeveryunwedcitizen
15
parenttosatisfythemoreoneroustenyearrequirementiftheotherparent
StatelessnessinSupportofPetitioner,FloresVillarv.UnitedStates,131S.Ct.
2312(2010),2010WL2569160.
18Recallthat1409(a)incorporatesthephysicalpresencerequirementfrom
1401(a)(7),whichappliestomarriedparentsofmixedcitizenship.
35
lackscitizenship;or(3)severingthetenyearrequirementin1409(a)and
1401(a)(7)andrequiringeveryunwedcitizenparenttosatisfytheless
onerousoneyearcontinuouspresencerequirementiftheotherparentlacks
citizenship.Inselectingamongthesethreeoptions,welooktotheintentof
Congressinenactingthe1952Act.SeeCal.Fed.Sav.&LoanAssnv.Guerra,
479U.S.272,292n.31(1987)([T]heCourtmustlooktotheintentofthe...
legislaturetodeterminewhethertoextendbenefitsornullifythestatute.).
Forreasonsweexplainbelow,weconcludethatthethirdoptionismost
consistentwithcongressionalintent.
10
Weeliminatethefirstoptionwithease.The1952Actcontainsa
11
severanceclausethatprovides:IfanyparticularprovisionofthisAct,orthe
12
applicationthereoftoanypersonorcircumstance,isheldinvalid,the
13
remainderoftheAct...shallnotbeaffectedthereby.1952Act406;cf.
14
Nguyen,533U.S.at72([S]everanceisbasedontheassumptionthat
15
Congresswouldhaveintendedtheresult.).Theclausemakesclearthatonly
16
oneoftheprovisionsin1409,ratherthanboth,shouldbeseveredas
17
constitutionallyinfirm.
36
Werejectthesecondoptioncontracting,asopposedtoextending,the
righttoderivativecitizenshipwithmorecircumspection.TheGovernment
urgesustoadoptthisoption,arguingthatthealternativeallowsthe
exceptionforunwedmotherstoswallowtherule,therebyinflictingmore
damagetothestatuteslanguageandstructureandreflectingamoreradical
changethanthe1952Congressintended.Thisargumentfailsfortworeasons.
First,theargumentmisunderstandsourtask,whichisnottodevisethe
cleanestwaytoalterthewordingandstructureofthestatute,butto
determinewhatresultCongressintendedintheeventthecombinedstatutory
10
provisionsweredeemedunconstitutional.Second,theGovernments
11
argumentneglectsthehistoricalbackgroundagainstwhichCongressenacted
12
therelevantprovisions.Althoughaclosecall,historydoesnotconvinceus
13
thatthemembersofCongresspassingthe1952Actwouldhaveviewedthe
14
extensionoftheoneyearrequirementasamoreradicalchangethanthe
15
alternative,inwhichallunwedcitizenparentsmustsatisfythetenyearage
16
calibratedrequirementiftheotherparentlackscitizenship.Tothecontrary,
17
thetenyearrequirementforfathersandmarriedmothersimposedby
18
Congressin1940appearstohaverepresentedasignificantdeparturefrom
37
longestablishedhistoricalpractice.SeeRogers,401U.S.at82326(reviewing
thehistoryofderivativecitizenshipstatutesfromtheActofMarch26,1790,1
Stat.103,throughthe1952Actandconcludingthatforthemostpart,each
successivestatute,asappliedtoaforeignbornchildofoneUnitedStates
citizenparent,movedinadirectionofleniencyforthechild).From1934
untiltheenactmentofthe1940Act,forexample,womenhadthestatutory
righttoconfercitizenshipontheirforeignbornchildrenandwererequired
merelytohaveresidedintheUnitedStatesforanydurationpriortothe
childsbirth.Thesamebareminimumrequirementappliedtomenforthe
10
vastmajorityofthetimesincethefounding,from1790until1940.Seeid.;
11
Weedin,274U.S.at66467;ActofMay24,1934,ch.344,1993,48Stat.797;
12
1940Act.Moreover,the1952Actsadditionofaoneyearcontinuous
13
physicalpresencerequirementforunmarriedcitizenmothersrepresenteda
14
relativelyminorchangeinthebaselineminimalresidencyrequirement
15
applicabletoallmenandwomenpriorto1940.Ontheotherhand,ofcourse,
16
werecognizethatthe1952Congress,presumablywiththebenefitofthislong
17
history,neverthelessdecidedtoretainthetenyearresidencyrequirement.
18
WhetherthisrelatedtotheemergenceoftheUnitedStatesasaworldpower
38
afterWorldWarIIoranincreasingnumberofchildrenbornofmixed
nationalityparents,orsomeothersetoffactors,wecannottellwith
confidence.
Neitherthetextnorthelegislativehistoryofthe1952Actisespecially
helpfulorclearonthispoint,andultimatelywhattipsthebalanceforusis
thebindingprecedentthatcautionsustoextendratherthancontractbenefits
inthefaceofambiguouscongressionalintent.See,e.g.,Westcott,443U.S.at
89(Inpreviouscasesinvolvingequalprotectionchallengestounderinclusive
federalbenefitsstatutes,thisCourthassuggestedthatextension,ratherthan
10
nullification,isthepropercourse.(citingJimenezv.Weinberger,417U.S.
11
628,63738(1974),andFrontierov.Richardson,411U.S.677,691n.25(1973)
12
(pluralityopinion)));Heckler,465U.S.at738,739n.5;Weinberger,420U.S.at
13
64142,653;SotoLopezv.N.Y.C.CivilServ.Commn,755F.2d266,28081(2d
14
Cir.1985).Indeed,weareunawareofasinglecaseinwhichtheSupreme
15
Courthascontracted,ratherthanextended,benefitswhencuringanequal
16
protectionviolationthroughseverance.
17
Lastly,theGovernmentcontendsthat,ingivingMoralesSantanathe
18
reliefheseeks,wearegrantingcitizenship,whichwelackthepowertodo.
39
Thisargumentrestsonamistakenpremise.Althoughcourtshavenopower
toconfercitizenshiponabasisotherthanthatprescribedbyCongress,
Miller,523U.S.at453(Scalia,J.,concurring),MoralesSantanahasnotasked
ustoconfercitizenship,andwedonotdoso.Instead,MoralesSantanaasks
thatweexerciseourtraditionalremedialpowerssothatthestatute,freeof
itsconstitutionaldefect,canoperatetodeterminewhethercitizenshipwas
transmittedatbirth.Nguyen,533U.S.at9596(OConnor,J.,dissenting)
(citingMiller,523U.S.at48889(Breyer,J.,dissenting));cf.id.at7374(Scalia,
J.,concurring).Inotherwords,ifMoralesSantanaweretoprevail,the
10
judgmentin[his]favorwouldconfirm[his]preexistingcitizenshiprather
11
thangrant[him]rightsthat[he]doesnotnowpossess.Miller,523U.S.at
12
432(opinionofStevens,J.).Correctingtheconstitutionaldefectherewouldat
13
aminimumentailreplacingthetenyearphysicalpresencerequirementin
14
1401(a)(7)(andincorporatedwithin1409(a))withtheoneyearcontinuous
15
presencerequirementin1409(c).19Thealternativeremedysuggestedbythe
19
Asmodified,1401(a)(7)wouldread:
apersonbornoutsidethegeographicallimitsoftheUnited
Statesanditsoutlyingpossessionsofparentsoneofwhomis
analien,andtheotheracitizenoftheUnitedStateswho,prior
tothebirthofsuchperson,wasphysicallypresentinthe
40
Governmentthatallunwedparentsbesubjecttothemoreoneroustenyear
requirementwouldprovenolesscontroversial:wehavenomorepowerto
stripcitizenshipconferredbyCongressthantoconferit.Nor,finally,has
Congressauthorizedustoavoidthequestion.See8U.S.C.1252(b)(5)(A)
(IfthepetitionerclaimstobeanationaloftheUnitedStatesandthecourtof
appealsfindsfromthepleadingsandaffidavitsthatnogenuineissueof
materialfactaboutthepetitionersnationalityispresented,thecourtshall
decidethenationalityclaim.(emphasisadded)).Conformingthe
immigrationlawsCongressenactedwiththeConstitutionsguaranteeof
10
equalprotection,weconcludethatMoralesSantanaisacitizenasofhisbirth.
11
CONCLUSION
12
Fortheforegoingreasons,weREVERSEtheBIAsdecisionand
13
REMANDforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.
UnitedStatesoritsoutlyingpossessionsforacontinuous
periodofoneyear:Provided,Thatanyperiodsofhonorable
serviceintheArmedForcesoftheUnitedStatesbysuch
citizenparentmaybeincludedincomputingthephysical
presencerequirementsofthisparagraph.
(firstemphasisaddedtoreflectchange).
41