Oscar Estrada-Chavez v. Jefferson Sessions , 705 F. App'x 604 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    DEC 4 2017
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    OSCAR ARTURO ESTRADA-CHAVEZ,                     No.   14-73382
    Petitioner,                        Agency No. A043-283-526
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
    General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Argued and Submitted October 20, 2017
    San Francisco, California
    Before: WALLACE and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,** Judge.
    Petitioner Oscar Arturo Estrada-Chavez, a lawful permanent resident who
    was born in Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
    Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his claim to derivative citizenship. We have
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of
    International Trade, sitting by designation.
    jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(5)(A) and we deny the petition.
    Petitioner’s citizenship claim is governed by former section 321(a) of the
    Immigration and Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C. § 1432 (repealed 2000). Section 321(a)
    provides that a child born outside of the United States to alien parents
    automatically acquires citizenship upon, among other conditions: (1) “[t]he
    naturalization of the parent having legal custody of the child when there has been a
    legal separation of the parents,” and (2) “[s]uch naturalization takes place while
    such child is under the age of eighteen years.” 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a)(3), (a)(4). Taken
    together, these two conditions require Petitioner to prove that his parents had
    legally separated at some point while Petitioner was under the age of eighteen
    years.
    We review de novo legal questions involved in a claim of derivative
    citizenship. Minasyan v. Gonzales, 
    401 F.3d 1069
    , 1074 (9th Cir. 2005) (citations
    omitted). We look to state law, in this case California law, when deciding whether
    a legal separation occurred. 
    Id. at 1076–77.
    Where, as here, the record presents no
    genuine factual dispute as to the constituent elements of a derivative citizenship
    claim, the court of appeals decides the claim. See Ayala-Villanueva v. Holder, 
    572 F.3d 736
    , 738 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Chau v. INS, 
    247 F.3d 1026
    , 1029 (9th Cir.
    2001)); 
    Minasyan, 401 F.3d at 1074
    . Given that Petitioner admits birth in
    2
    Guatemala, he has the burden of proving United States citizenship with
    “substantial credible evidence.” 
    Ayala-Villanueva, 572 F.3d at 737
    n.3.
    Here, Petitioner presents affidavits by his parents as evidence that his
    parents were legally separated under California law as of the year 2000, when
    Petitioner was 17 years old. Under California law, legal separation occurs when the
    spouses “have come to a parting of the ways with no present intention of resuming
    marital relations.” 
    Minasyan, 401 F.3d at 1078
    (quoting In re Marriage of
    Marsden, 
    181 Cal. Rptr. 910
    , 914 (Ct. App. 1982)). “The question is whether the
    parties’ conduct evidences a complete and final break in the marital relationship.”
    In re Marriage of 
    Marsden, 181 Cal. Rptr. at 914
    (citation omitted).
    The affidavits of Petitioner’s parents do not demonstrate a legal separation
    under California law. Taken as true, the affidavits show that Petitioner’s parents
    have been living separately since the year 2000, and that they are experiencing, or
    have experienced, strains in the marriage because of Petitioner’s mother’s decision
    to work as a missionary. At most, then, the record establishes some degree of
    marital discord between the spouses during the relevant time period. These
    affidavits do not, however, constitute substantial credible evidence of “a complete
    and final break in the marital relationship” before Petitioner turned 18 years old. In
    re Marriage of Baragry, 
    140 Cal. Rptr. 779
    , 781 (Ct. App. 1977) (“That husband
    3
    and wife may live in separate residences is not determinative [of legal
    separation].”) Therefore, Petitioner has not satisfied his burden to show entitlement
    to derivative citizenship on the basis of his parents’ legal separation.
    The petition for review is DENIED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-73382

Citation Numbers: 705 F. App'x 604

Judges: Wallace, Callahan, Restani

Filed Date: 12/4/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024