Johnson v. Whitehead, 647 F.3d 120

Johnson, a Jamaica-born LPR, faced removal in 2008 for drug/gun offenses; he claimed U.S. citizenship under 8 U.S.C. §1432(a)(3).
In 1998, an INS/ IJ proceeding noted he “appears to be [a] U.S. citizen” but did not confer citizenship; INS denied citizenship in 2000 (N-600).
Johnson argued DHS precluded from relitigating citizenship in 2008 removal proceedings due to the 1998 termination order.
BIA and IJ rejected Johnson’s citizenship claim, relying on §1432(a)(3)’s marriage-based optical separation and denying citizenship derivation.
District court dismissed Johnson’s habeas petition and the court later consolidated and denied his petition for review; Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal and denied review.
The court held that petition for review was proper, preclusion did not apply, and §1432(a)(3) withstands rational-basis review.”

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether habeas petition was proper vehicle for citizenship claim	Johnson argues habeas review is appropriate	Removal questions fall under §1252; review via petition for review	Petition for review proper; habeas dismissed
Whether Johnson is a U.S. citizen under §1432(a)(3)	Johnson qualifies due to father’s naturalization and legal separation	Statute requires marriage-based legal separation; Johnson’s parents never married	Statute requires marriage-based legal separation; Johnson not citizen
Whether prior 1998 order precludes relitigation of alienage	1998 IJ declared citizenship; precludes later relitigation	IJ/BIA lack citizenship-conferring power; no explicit preclusion	No issue preclusion; prior order lacked citizenship finding; not binding
Whether the preclusion rule should apply to administrative agencies in immigration	Agency preclusion should bar relitigation to preserve finality	INA vests agency with own procedures; courts shouldn’t impose their preclusion rules	Courts don’t impose common-law preclusion; agency rules control and reject Johnson’s broad preclusion
Constitutional validity of §1432(a)(3) under equal protection	Dissent would apply heightened scrutiny due to legitimacy; statute unconstitutional	Immigration context allows rational-basis review; statute rationally tailored	Court applies rational-basis review; statute constitutional

Barnes v. Holder, 625 F.3d 801 (4th Cir. 2010) (BIA lacks naturalization jurisdiction; citizenship decisions rest with DHS)
Duvall v. Attorney General of the United States, 436 F.3d 382 (3d Cir. 2006) (Preclusion in immigration context; removal of criminal aliens)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc., 435 F.3d 519 (2d Cir. 1978) (Agencies may craft procedures; courts refrain absent statutory/constitutional limits)
Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (U.S. 1977) (Immigration power; rational-basis review for citizenship-related classifications)
Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001) (Heightened scrutiny in citizenship cases; family/citizenship interests)
Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) (Heightened scrutiny; gender-based naturalization distinctions)
Wedderburn v. INS, 215 F.3d 795 (7th Cir. 2000) (Support for §1432(a)(3) interpretations restricting automatic citizenship)
Afeta v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 402 (4th Cir. 2006) (Interpreting 8 U.S.C. §1432; reasonable reading of “legal separation”)
Lewis v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2007) (Rational-basis analysis for §1432(a)(3) interpretations)