Duarte-Ceri v. Holder, 630 F.3d 83

Duarte-Ceri, born June 14, 1973 in the Dominican Republic, entered the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident in 1981 at age eight.
Duarte’s mother was naturalized in the morning of June 14, 1991, Duarte’s eighteenth birthday.
Diesm: Duarte’s father is not central; the custody remained with Duarte’s mother under a divorce decree.
Duarte had a criminal history, including offenses in 1990–1994, leading to a 1997 IJ deportation order and 2001 BIA affirmation.
Duarte challenged derivative citizenship under former INA § 321(a) (8 U.S.C. § 1432(a)) claiming he was under eighteen when his mother naturalized.
The BIA remanded once; the IJ and BIA held the timing of birth irrelevant to derivative citizenship; Duarte petitioned for review and for a reopen.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Duarte was under the age of eighteen when mother naturalized	Duarte argues he remained under 18 until the evening of his birthday crowding the 1991 naturalization.	Government argues statutory language is ambiguous but supports the post-midnight cut-off rule for age.	We hold Duarte was under 18 when mother naturalized on the morning of his eighteenth birthday.
Interpretation of 'under the age of eighteen years' in § 1432(a)	Literal meaning would treat age as of birthday time; prefers preserving citizenship.	Literal reading uses indivisible day rule; would extinguish citizenship.	Ambiguity resolved to preserve citizenship; parse day into hours to avoid forfeiture.
Whether the case should be transferred for factual development	Factual timing of Duarte’s birth should be developed to resolve nationality claim.	No genuine factual dispute on timing; should decide as a legal claim.	Case transferred to district court for new hearing on nationality claim.
Whether Duarte has jurisdiction or standing to seek review	Citizenship claim implicates removal proceedings; court should decide.	Procedural posture limits reviewability; derivative citizenship claims are legal questions.	Jurisdiction acknowledged; court retains authority to decide nationality question.

INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (U.S. 1987) (ambiguities in favor of the petitioner in immigration context)
Pangilinan, 486 U.S. 875 (U.S. 1988) (text interpreting foreign citizenship and jurisdiction in immigration context)
Langhorne v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 175 (2d Cir. 2004) (derivative citizenship age related statute interpretation)
Bustamante-Barrera v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2006) (remedial purposes to preserve family unity in derivative citizenship)
Poole v. Mukasey, 522 F.3d 259 (2d Cir. 2008) (defining 'under the age' in derivative citizenship context)
Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1963) (stakes of citizenship and due process in constitutional context)
Taylor v. Brown, 147 U.S. 640 (U.S. 1893) (fractions of time and precise timing in legal acts)
Town of Louisville v. Portsmouth Sav. Bank, 104 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1881) (fractions of time may be considered when justice requires)
United States v. Ramirez, 297 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2002) (interpretation of 'under the age' language in context)