Thomas v. Lynch
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12373
1st Cir.2016Background
- Pierre Thomas, born in Haiti, entered the U.S. in 1986 as a nonimmigrant and remained past his authorized stay; his mother later obtained LPR status and then naturalized on May 18, 1999. Three days after her naturalization Thomas turned 18.
- Prior to the mother's naturalization: mother filed I-817 (Family Unity) in 1995 and an I-130 for Thomas in 1997; Thomas never obtained lawful permanent resident (LPR) status as a minor.
- Thomas was convicted of armed robbery in 2003; in 2012 DHS initiated removal as an aggravated-felon noncitizen. He claimed derivative citizenship based on his mother’s 1999 naturalization under former INA § 321(a) (pre-Child Citizenship Act).
- The IJ and BIA rejected Thomas’s claim (following Matter of Nwozuzu), concluding he did not obtain LPR status while under 18 and thus did not “thereafter begin to reside permanently” after the parent’s naturalization.
- Thomas was removed in 2013, returned illegally, was arrested in 2015, moved to reopen the BIA order claiming derivative citizenship; the government waived timeliness defenses and the First Circuit reached the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thomas acquired derivative U.S. citizenship under former INA § 321(a)(5) by "thereafter beg[inning] to reside permanently" after his mother’s naturalization | Thomas: "reside permanently" is broader than LPR status; under Nwozuzu he need only show an objective official manifestation or other indicia of permanent residence after naturalization | Government/BIA: clause requires obtaining LPR status while under 18; "reside permanently" is shorthand for "reside pursuant to lawful admission for permanent residence" | Court: Denies petition — Thomas did not satisfy the "thereafter begins" requirement because any permanent residence began before the mother’s naturalization and he took no qualifying action in the three-day window before turning 18. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nwozuzu v. Holder, 726 F.3d 323 (2d Cir.) (interpreting "begins to reside permanently" to allow broader manifestations of permanence)
- United States v. Forey-Quintero, 626 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir.) (adopting BIA view that LPR status is required)
- Minasyan v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir.) (discussing limits on agency deference for nationality claims)
- Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir.) (construing derivative citizenship provisions)
- Holley v. Lavine, 553 F.2d 845 (2d Cir. 1977) (permanent residence under color of law concept)
- Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456 (9th Cir.) (administrative interpretation of "permanently residing under color of law")