11-1252-ag

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