Gupta v. Attorney General of United States
52 F. Supp. 3d 677
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Gupta seeks a declaratory judgment of U.S. citizenship derivatively through his father, Ranjit Gupta.
- On March 20, 2014, this Court denied Gupta’s citizenship application in the March 20 Decision.
- Gupta later filed a motion for reconsideration, opposed by the Attorney General.
- The Court has reconsidered evidentiary rulings and finds the weight of the evidence now slightly favors Gupta.
- Gupta’s motion for reconsideration is granted and Gupta’s citizenship petition is granted pending appellate stay.
- The Third Circuit has stayed Gupta’s removal pending final determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether waiver and hearsay rulings were properly applied | Gupta argues Respondent waived objection to Fried’s testimony | Respondent opposed admission as hearsay but failed to timely object | Waiver found; Fried’s testimony received |
| Whether missing passport pages may support adverse inference | Gupta argues inference from missing pages remains valid | Defense maintained adverse inference appropriate | Court adheres to negative inference as previously ruled |
| Whether the preponderance standard was misapplied for continuous presence | Gupta contends continuous presence can be shown by intermittent dates | Government contends continuous presence requires evidence of ongoing presence | Preponderance standard applied; evidence weighs slightly in Gupta’s favor |
| Whether evidence of letters and calls suffices to prove present in U.S. prior to birth | Letters with U.S. postage and Fried’s testimony support present in U.S. | Evidence incomplete; burden remains on Gupta | Evidence tips the scales in Gupta’s favor; burden met by preponderance |
Key Cases Cited
- Hernandez v. Holder, 736 F.3d 234 (2d Cir. 2013) (continuous presence standard for cancellation of removal)
- United States v. Garcia-Jimenez, 623 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2010) (intermittent presence used to infer continuous presence)
- Del Llano, 354 F.2d 844 (2d Cir. 1965) (waiver of hearsay objections; timely objection needed)
- Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976) (general principle on admitting objections and remedying errors)
- Range Road Music, Inc. v. Music Sales Corp., 90 F.Supp.2d 390 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (objections and reconsideration standards in SDNY)
- United States v. Treacy, 2009 WL 47496 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (recognizes limits on reconsideration as new evidence)
- Mendell ex rel. Viacom, Inc. v. Gollust, 909 F.2d 724 (2d Cir. 1990) (limits on reconsideration arguments)
- Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1995) (standard for reconsideration)