Porter v. Quarantillo
722 F.3d 94
2d Cir.2013Background
- Porter, a naturalized U.S. citizen, seeks a declaratory judgment of citizenship at birth based on derivative citizenship through his mother, Diamond.
- Diamond, born in the U.S., allegedly remained in the United States for over one year before moving to St. Vincent and the Grenadines, a fact Porter seeks to prove via affidavits for §1409© derivative citizenship.
- Affidavits from Diamond, a childhood friend Thomas Brown, and others assert Diamond’s age at relocation; disputes arise over their reliability and admissibility as hearsay.
- The district court ruled these affidavits inadmissible hearsay and not within family history or reputation exceptions, granting summary judgment for USCIS.
- Porter appeals, challenging the evidentiary rulings; the court reviews hearsay admissibility for abuse of discretion and then de novo on summary judgment.
- The core issue is whether the district court properly excluded statements about Diamond’s age at relocation under Rule 804(b)(4) and related Rule 803(19).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Diamond affidavit falls within Rule 804(b)(4) family history | Porter argues it concerns personal history of the mother. | USCIS contends it does not relate to birth/ancestry as required. | No abuse; not within the family history category. |
| Whether the affidavits about Diamond’s age fit Rule 803(19) reputation | Porter relies on reputation evidence to prove Diamond’s age at relocation. | Reputation must concern well-known facts with reliable community knowledge. | District court did not abuse discretion; insufficient reliability. |
| Whether the district court properly excluded the affidavits for derivative citizenship | Affidavits are admissible under family history and reputation exceptions. | Statements are inadmissible hearsay lacking reliability. | Affirmed; Porter failed to prove one-year presence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 (U.S. 1990) (family history exceptions rely on reliability and cross-examination utility)
- Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1995) (adherence to common-law foundations of evidentiary rules)
- Raskin v. Wyatt Co., 125 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 1997) (summary judgment evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- LaSalle Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Nomura Asset Capital Corp., 424 F.3d 195 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard for admitting evidence in summary judgment under adversarial record)
- United States v. Coplan, 703 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2012) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings at summary judgment)
- Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., 582 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2009) (evidence admissibility and summary judgment interplay)