Garza-Flores v. Mayorkas, 38 F.4th 440

Petitioner Javier Garza‑Flores was born in Mexico in 1974, out of wedlock to a Mexican mother and a U.S.‑citizen father (Eugenio Garza‑Guerra).
Garza‑Flores entered the U.S. without inspection in 2000, was convicted of burglary, admitted removability, and was removed in 2003.
In 2014 he applied for a Certificate of Citizenship claiming acquisition at birth through his father; USCIS denied the application.
After reentering the U.S. years later, DHS reinstated the prior removal order; Garza‑Flores petitioned for review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and moved to transfer for a de novo district‑court nationality determination under § 1252(b)(5)(B).
The dispositive legal question is whether Garza‑Flores’s father met the statutory physical‑presence requirement in effect at the petitioner’s 1974 birth (10 years in the U.S., at least 5 after age 14).
Petitioner submitted documentary and testimonial evidence (Texas baptism certificate, a 1938 border card, 1941 WWII draft card listing U.S. citizenship and Texas employment/addresses, a 1969 citizenship application with Texas address, and an affidavit from the father’s sister) to create a factual dispute on physical presence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a genuine issue of material fact exists on father’s physical presence (triggering transfer under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5)(B))	Documentary and testimonial evidence creates a triable dispute about the father’s U.S. physical presence during the relevant years	Evidence is insufficient to raise a genuine factual dispute	Court held a genuine issue exists and transferred the case to district court for de novo review
Admissibility/personal‑knowledge challenge to sister’s affidavit under summary‑judgment rules	Affidavit facts are within affiant’s knowledge by virtue of relationship and longstanding family contact	Affidavit contains speculation and lacks required personal knowledge	Court inferred personal knowledge for core factual statements; disregarded only speculative conclusions but considered remaining affidavit evidence
Whether prior USCIS denial precludes judicial review of the citizenship claim	Prior administrative denial does not bar judicial review of nationality claim	Government relied on USCIS denial as weight against claim	Court reiterated that prior USCIS rejection does not preclude appellate consideration or transfer for de novo review

Lopez v. Holder, 563 F.3d 107 (5th Cir. 2009) (distinguishing procedural avenues for citizenship claims)
Iracheta v. Holder, 730 F.3d 419 (5th Cir. 2013) (applicable law is statute at time of birth; prior USCIS rejection does not bar review)
Alwan v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 2004) (administrative decisions do not preclude appellate review of citizenship claims)
Agosto v. INS, 436 U.S. 748 (U.S. 1978) (summary‑judgment principles govern § 1252(b)(5) factual‑issue transfers)
Rosales v. Lynch, 821 F.3d 625 (5th Cir. 2016) (courts must not weigh credibility when deciding if a genuine issue exists under § 1252(b)(5))
Batista v. Ashcroft, 270 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2001) (petitioner need only show a genuine factual dispute to trigger de novo review)
DIRECTV Inc. v. Budden, 420 F.3d 521 (5th Cir. 2005) (personal knowledge for affidavit statements may be reasonably inferred from circumstances)