Luis Gonzalez-Marquez v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 551 F. App'x 392 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 03 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS ALBERTO GONZALEZ- No. 12-71861
MARQUEZ,
BIA No. A-044-371-754
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition to Review a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted December 3, 2013
San Francisco, California
Before: GOULD and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and HUFF, District Judge.**
Petitioner Luis Alberto Gonzalez-Marquez seeks review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of the Immigration
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Marilyn L. Huff, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
Judge’s order of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§
1252(a)(1), (a)(2)(D), (b)(5).
The facts are not disputed.1 The appeal raises a question of law, which we
review de novo. Solis-Espinoza v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 2005).
We conclude that the BIA erred by rejecting Petitioner’s claim of derivative
citizenship as a “child legitimated under the law of the child’s residence or
domicile” for the purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(c)(1). Section 1431(a) does not
expressly require a blood relationship to the citizen parent (here, Jesus Javier
Gonzalez Hernandez; hereinafter Mr. Gonzalez). Cf. Solis-Espinoza, 401 F.3d at
1094 (contrasting 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g) with § 1409); Scales v. INS, 232 F.3d 1159,
1164-66 (9th Cir. 2000) (declining to add requirements to § 1401(g)).
In 1991, when Petitioner was four, Mr. Gonzalez and Petitioner’s mother
complied with the formal procedure of “recognition” as set forth in the Mexican
State of Chihuahua’s Civil Code. The amended birth certificate lists Mr. Gonzalez
as Petitioner’s father and was officially recorded in the Civil Registry. The
1
We reject the Government’s suggestion that further proceedings are
necessary to consider the “legal and physical custody” element of § 1431. The
Government stipulated to the underlying facts, declined the opportunity to question
Petitioner’s mother, and limited its case to the legal issue. Moreover, there is no
indication in the record that the Petitioner did not reside with his family when they
entered the United States in 1994. See Chau v. INS, 247 F.3d 1026, 1029 n.5 (9th
Cir. 2001).
2
Petitioner’s expert and the Government’s expert agree that the Petitioner was
legitimated as Mr. Gonzalez’s son pursuant to Chihuahua law. We hold that the
recognition procedure is consistent with § 1101(c)(1), which refers to and honors
concepts of family law from foreign countries. We conclude that the filial
connection created by Chihuahua’s recognition process “amply satisfies the letter
and spirit of the statute.” Rios v. Civiletti, 571 F. Supp. 218, 222 (D.P.R. 1983).
Petitioner enjoys the right to inherit from Mr. Gonzalez; and Mr. Gonzalez
undertook the legal obligation to raise Petitioner as if he were his biological or
adopted son. “In every practical sense,” Petitioner is the “child” of a citizen parent.
Solis-Espinoza, 401 F.3d at 1094.
For the above reasons, we conclude that Petitioner is a United States citizen
by virtue of Mr. Gonzalez’s naturalization.
PETITION GRANTED; REVERSED AND REMANDED.
3