Nwozuzu v. Holder
726 F.3d 323
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Nwozuzu, born in Nigeria, arrived in the United States as a child and later sought derivative citizenship through his naturalized parents.
- Both of Nwozuzu's parents were naturalized U.S. citizens in 1994.
- Nwozuzu applied for adjustment of status as a permanent resident at age 17 (1995) but was not decided then; he later left the U.S. and was readmitted as a permanent resident in 1998.
- Nwozuzu was convicted in 2004 of firearm and marijuana offenses, affecting removal proceedings.
- The BIA adopted the view that one must be a current lawful permanent resident before 18 to derive citizenship under §321(a)(5); the petition for review challenged this interpretation and sought remand for proper application of §321(a).
- The district court remanded to the BIA; the petition for review was granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §321(a)(5) require lawful admission for permanent residence at the time of a parent’s naturalization? | Nwozuzu contends the second clause governs derivative citizenship without requiring LPR status by 18. | DHS/BIA argued that ‘reside permanently’ aligns with LPR status or requires equivalent status. | No; the two clauses are distinct and ‘begins to reside permanently’ can satisfy citizenship without prior LPR status. |
| Is the BIA’s interpretation that ‘reside permanently’ equals LPR status reasonable? | BIA's reading would negate the first clause and disfavor derivative-eligibility. | BIA reasoned that a person must be LPR to be permanent; otherwise the first clause is rendered surplusage. | Unreasonable; §321(a)5 allows objective manifestation of permanent residence short of LPR, consistent with statutory history. |
| What role does legislative history play in interpreting §321(a)(5)? | Leg history supports treating the two clauses as distinct to preserve family unity. | Leg history is not decisive; text should control. | Legislative history supports a distinct, flexible reading toward preserving families. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashton v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2005) (holds that ‘reside permanently’ can be satisfied without LPR status; objective manifestation suffices)
- Duarte-Ceri v. Holder, 630 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2010) (supports family-preserving interpretation of derivative citizenship statute)
- INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (U.S. 1987) ( utilized to discuss statutory interpretation and congressional intent)
- Patton v. Tod, 297 F.2d 385 (2d Cir. 1924) (historical context for derivative citizenship and residence concepts)