Anderson v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1089

Anderson was born in England on Oct 1, 1954 to Mavis Sinclair and Henry Gitelman, a U.S. citizen.
Gitelman’s paternity was undisputed but he was not listed on the birth certificate; he later signed an affidavit claiming paternity.
Arizona law § 8-601 provides that every child is the legitimate child of its natural parents, effectively legitimating Anderson.
Anderson resided in Arizona and other states (Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota) before turning 21, with Arizona domicile prior to his twenty‑first birthday.
In 1996 Anderson was convicted of meth distribution; the INS issued a Notice to Appear in 2000; an IJ initially terminated proceedings on citizenship grounds, but the BIA reversed and ordered removal.
The Ninth Circuit ultimately held Anderson is a U.S. citizen, concluded jurisdiction and merits, and remanded to vacate the removal order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a removal order against a U.S. citizen is reviewable despite ultra vires origins	Anderson contends §1252(b)(5) permits review of citizenship claims despite the BIA’s ultra vires action	Government argues the removal order was not a valid final order due to ultra vires	Yes; the order is a final reviewable action under §1252(b)(5) when previously executed against a citizen
Whether Anderson derived U.S. citizenship through his biological father via legitimation under Former §1409(a)	Arizona law legitimated Anderson by birth, making Gitelman his legitimate father under Former §1401(a)(7) as of paternity established by legitimation	Legitimation requires a formal act; Arizona’s lack of formal steps should foreclose status	Anderson derived citizenship; paternity established by legitimation under Arizona law and Former §1409(a)
What law governs whether paternity was established by legitimation	Arizona law retroactively recognized illegitimacy parity; paternity established by birth legitimacy	Federal statute requires formal legitimation in some jurisdictions; not satisfied here	Arizona’s legitimacy statute suffices to establish paternity by legitimation for citizenship

Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276 (1922) (due process protections in citizenship cases)
Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) (formality considerations in 1986 amendments context)
Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001) (citizenship determination issues in amendments context)
Lau v. Kiley, 563 F.2d 543 (2d Cir. 1977) (abolition of distinctions between legitimate/illegitimate children suffices for legitimation)
Brandao v. Attorney General of the United States, 654 F.3d 427 (3d Cir. 2011) (paternity established by legitimation where law treats all children as legitimate)
Romero-Mendoza v. Holder, 665 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2011) (applies Hernandez/Wong rationale to legitimation when distinctions are eliminated)
Silva's Estate, 32 Ariz. 573 (1927) (Arizona law: every child legitimate of its natural parents; formal action not required when not needed for support)
In re Cook's Estate, 63 Ariz. 78 (1945) (recognizes non-exclusive use of non-adversarial paternity actions to fix parentage)