Imad Jaffal v. Director Newark New Jersey Fie, 23 F.4th 275

Background

Imad Jaffal, born in Jordan in 1965, emigrated to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident with his parents; his father naturalized in April 1982 when Imad was 17.
In September 1981 the father declared a divorce in Jordanian Sharia court; Jordanian documents (sharia judge statement, imam letter, custody authentication, and later Jordanian judge affidavit) show the divorce was registered, became irrevocable after the waiting period, and that the father gained sole custody as of September 1981.
Jaffal applied for a Certificate of Citizenship (N-600) in 2016; USCIS denied it and the District Court granted summary judgment to the government, holding the Jordanian unilateral divorce was not recognized under Third Circuit law (citing a bilateral-participation principle and raising a domiciliary/competent‑jurisdiction concern).
On appeal Jaffal argued §1432(a) requires deference to the law of a jurisdiction having authority over the marriage (here Jordan and Ohio) and that the Jordanian divorce and custody decree satisfied §1432(a)’s legal‑separation and custody requirements.
The Third Circuit reviewed de novo, concluded the District Court erred in refusing to recognize the Jordanian decree, and found (1) the parents were legally separated under Jordanian law as a matter of law and (2) Jaffal was in his father’s sole legal custody when the father naturalized.
The court reversed summary judgment for the government and remanded with instruction to enter judgment declaring Jaffal a U.S. national (derivative citizen) under former 8 U.S.C. §1432(a).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Jaffal's parents were a "legal separation" under §1432(a) at father's naturalization	Jordanian Sharia divorce and supporting documents show a valid separation in Sept 1981 that became irrevocable; defer to Jordanian law	Jordanian proceeding was unilateral and not recognized under Third Circuit precedent; no evidence mother participated	Court held as a matter of law the Jordanian divorce established legal separation under §1432(a) because it was valid under the marital jurisdiction's law; reverse.
Whether a foreign divorce must be bilateral or require domicile in the foreign state to be recognized for §1432(a) purposes	§1432(a) requires only that a valid separation exist under a jurisdiction having authority over the marriage; no extra bilateral or domicile requirement	Relied on Perrin/comity to argue bilateral participation and domicile are needed to recognize foreign decrees	Court rejected imposing a Perrin‑based bilateral/domicile requirement for §1432(a); deference is to the law of the relevant jurisdiction that has authority over the marriage.
Whether Jaffal was in the sole legal custody of his father when father naturalized	Jordanian judicial custody document grants father full custody as of Sept 1981	Government argued plaintiff must show "actual uncontested custody" and disputed sufficiency	Court held the Jordanian judicial custody grant satisfies the legal‑custody test; no inquiry into actual uncontested custody was necessary.

Key Cases Cited

Morgan v. Attorney General, 432 F.3d 226 (3d Cir. 2005) (holdings: §1432(a) defers to the law(s) of the jurisdiction(s) having authority over the marriage to define "legal separation")
Espichan v. Attorney General, 945 F.3d 794 (3d Cir. 2019) (unilateral separation under foreign law can satisfy §1432(a) when that law permits unilateral termination)
Perrin v. Perrin, 408 F.2d 107 (3d Cir. 1969) (discussed re: comity and domicile but not controlling for §1432(a) analysis)
Bagot v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 252 (3d Cir. 2005) (articulates two‑step legal‑custody test: judicial grant or actual uncontested custody)
Williams v. North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226 (U.S. 1945) (domicile principles referenced by District Court but limited in §1432(a) context)
U.S. ex rel. Saroop v. Garcia, 109 F.3d 165 (3d Cir. 1997) (discussion of comity principles)