United States v. Forey-Quintero
626 F.3d 1323
| 11th Cir. | 2010Background
- Forey-Quintero was charged with being an alien found in the U.S. after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2).
- He claimed derivative citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1432 based on his mother's naturalization.
- The district court held that derivative citizenship under § 1432 requires lawful permanent resident status before age 18, which Forey-Quintero lacked.
- Forey-Quintero's mother naturalized on April 22, 1999, while he was under 18.
- Forey-Quintero applied for LPR status on July 22, 1999; his LPR approval occurred January 11, 2002, after he turned 19.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding the second clause of § 1432(a)(5) requires LPR status before age 18.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 321(a)(5) require LPR status to derive citizenship? | Forey-Quintero argues no LPR status requirement. | Government argues LPR status is required before 18. | Yes; derivative citizenship requires LPR status before 18. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Nwozuzu, 24 I. & N. Dec. 609 (BIA 2008) (residence must be lawful for 'permanent' residence interpretation)
- Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2008) (statutory construction supports LPR requirement)
- Ardestani v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 904 F.2d 1505 (11th Cir. 1990) (statutory interpretation framework)
- United States v. Ambert, 561 F.3d 1202 (11th Cir. 2009) (de novo review of statutory interpretation)
- United States v. Canals-Jimenez, 943 F.2d 1284 (11th Cir. 1991) (no words should be treated as surplusage in interpretation)