Miranda v. Sessions
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5917
1st Cir.2017Background
- Miranda born out of wedlock in Angola in 1978; parents were citizens of Cape Verde. Parents later married in Massachusetts (1988) after the family immigrated to the U.S. as lawful permanent residents (1988).
- Miranda's mother naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1995 while Miranda (age 16) resided in the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident; his sisters obtained certificates of citizenship but Miranda did not because he missed his N-600 interview.
- In 2007 an IJ (Adkins‑Blanch) found Miranda had derived citizenship through his mother and terminated removal proceedings; DHS did not appeal that IJ decision.
- In 2012 Miranda was convicted of a drug distribution felony; DHS commenced new removal proceedings in 2015. A different IJ (Day) concluded Miranda’s paternity had been legitimated (under Cape Verde, Angolan, and Massachusetts law) and ordered removal; the BIA affirmed.
- Miranda petitioned for review arguing (1) he is a U.S. citizen (thus not removable) and (2) res judicata should have barred relitigation of the 2007 IJ citizenship finding.
- The First Circuit conducted a plenary review of the citizenship claim (required to assess jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §1252) and concluded Miranda failed to prove U.S. citizenship; therefore §1252(a)(2)(C)’s jurisdictional bar applied and the petition was dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miranda is a U.S. citizen by derivation from his mother’s 1995 naturalization under former 8 U.S.C. §1432(a) | Miranda: mother’s naturalization conferred citizenship because paternity had not been "established by legitimation" | Government: paternity was established by legitimation under applicable foreign and state laws, so derivation fails | Court: Miranda failed to meet burden; paternity was legitimated under Cape Verde, Angola, and Massachusetts law; not a U.S. citizen |
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the removal order given Miranda’s criminal removability | Miranda: he is a citizen, so §1252(a)(2)(C) does not bar review | Government: Miranda is an alien removable for serious criminal convictions, so §1252(a)(2)(C) bars review | Court: After plenary review found Miranda is not a citizen, §1252(a)(2)(C) bars review; petition dismissed |
| Whether res judicata required the IJ/BIA to give preclusive effect to the 2007 IJ decision finding citizenship | Miranda: earlier IJ determination is binding and precludes relitigation | Government: res judicata in administrative proceedings is flexible and need not be applied where it would frustrate Congressional intent to remove criminal aliens | Court: Declined to resolve preclusion issue after independently finding Miranda not a citizen; application moot given court’s citizenship determination |
| Whether §1252(a)(2)(D) allows review of res judicata as a legal question despite §1252(a)(2)(C) bar | Miranda: applicability of res judicata is a question of law preserved by §1252(a)(2)(D) | Government: even if a legal question, reviewing it would be inconsistent after court’s independent citizenship determination | Court: Did not reach the claim; concluded it would be counterintuitive to overturn court’s own determination by enforcing conflicting preclusion result |
Key Cases Cited
- Shepherd v. Holder, 678 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2012) (statutory nationality-review principles and treatment of citizenship claims under INA)
- Leal Santos v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008) (burden shifts to claimant to prove citizenship when foreign birth creates presumption of alienage)
- Brandao v. Att. Gen. of U.S., 654 F.3d 427 (3d Cir. 2011) (foreign law eliminating legitimacy distinctions can establish legitimation for immigration purposes)
- Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104 (1991) (administrative proceedings treat preclusion and legal questions differently than judicial proceedings)
- Porn v. National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 93 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 1996) (discussion of res judicata as a question of law in a judicial context)
- United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1990) (argument-preservation and waiver principles)