Summary
The Second Circuit determines whether a petitioner's paternity was 'established by legitimation' under former INA § 321(a)(3), which would bar him from deriving U.S. citizenship through his mother's naturalization. Analyzing El Salvador's 1983 constitutional reform that equalized children's rights, the court holds that the reform did not establish the father's parental rights. Therefore, the petitioner validly derived citizenship and his removal proceedings must be terminated.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Lainez’s paternity was “established by legitimation” under former §321 of the Immigration and Nationality Act
- Whether Lainez derived U.S. citizenship from his mother’s naturalization and therefore the 2012 removal order should be vacated.
Holdings
- Lainez’s paternity was not established by legitimation.
- Because his paternity was not established by legitimation, Lainez derived citizenship from his mother’s naturalization.
Key quotations
“We conclude that Lainez’s paternity was not “established by legitimation.” As a result, a 2012 order of removal cannot be enforced against him, and the pending removal proceedings must be terminated.” ([text])
Factual background
Lainez was born in El Salvador in 1970 to unmarried parents. He entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1979, and his mother naturalized in 1985 while he was fourteen. His father never naturalized and did not establish parental rights. Lainez later faced removal proceedings based on criminal convictions.
Procedural history
The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Lainez’s appeal of a 2012 removal order. Lainez then filed a petition for review in this Court seeking vacatur of the removal order on the ground that his paternity was not established by legitimation under former §321 of the INA, and that he therefore derived U.S. citizenship from his mother’s naturalization.
Remand instructions
Remand to the Board of Immigration Appeals with instructions to terminate removal proceedings against Lainez.