Patrick Ayton v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13458
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Ayton, born in the Bahamas in 1971, seeks derivative citizenship under INA § 321(a) through his father and mother’s status.
- Ayton’s mother, Ford, was in a persistent vegetative state after brain injury; Ford died in 1991 with Ayton age 20.
- Ayton’s father, Linval, later naturalized in 1978, and Ayton entered the U.S. as a permanent resident in 1983.
- Ford never naturalized; Ayton argued § 321(a)(2) (death) or § 321(a)(3) (legal custody and separation) should apply.
- The IJ and BIA denied derivative citizenship, and Ayton appealed to this court, arguing § 321(a) discriminates by gender and legitimacy.
- The court affirms the BIA, holding Ayton fails to satisfy § 321(a) any of the enumerated pathways.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Ayton qualify for derivative citizenship under § 321(a)(2) or (3)? | Ayton argues mother was deceased or legally separated for derivative eligibility. | Government contends Ford was never legally dead or separated; guardianship does not equal separation. | No; Ayton fails § 321(a)(2) and (3). |
| Does § 321(a) discriminate on gender or legitimacy, violating equal protection? | Ayton claims gender/legitimacy-based discrimination in who confers citizenship. | Section survives rational basis review; rationally advances parental rights and biological link requirements. | Section § 321(a)(3) survives rational-basis scrutiny; no equal protection violation. |
| Did Ayton prove the burden of proof for naturalization and proper review standards apply? | Ayton bears burden to prove derivative citizenship by preponderance of credible evidence. | BIA properly applied § 321(a)’s conditions and evidentiary burden. | Ayton did not meet the required evidentiary showing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bustamante-Barrera v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2006) (burden of proof and standard of review in derivative citizenship cases)
- Nehme v. I.N.S., 252 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2001) (legal separation requires judicial separation for § 321(a)(3))
- Wedderburn v. I.N.S., 215 F.3d 795 (7th Cir. 2000) (defines legal separation for § 321(a)(3))
- Lewis v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2007) (discusses § 321(a) as applied to derivative citizenship)
- Nguyen v. I.N.S., 533 U.S. 53 (2001) (upholds gender-based differential treatment under heightened scrutiny in analogous context)
- Berenyi v. I.N.S., 385 U.S. 630 (1967) (constitutional background for citizenship classifications)
- Marquez-Marquez v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 548 (5th Cir. 2006) (burden and standards for citizenship claims)
- United States v. Smith, 499 U.S. 160 (1991) (limits on implied exceptions when Congress enumerates specific ones)