relatively straightforward case from some points of view and fabricating from other things pretty unusual though isn't it it's very unusual you see in a lot of cases and you may not have seen one like this yes or this is an acquisition case meaning that the response on us was born in mexico of a us citizen father and the question is whether she acquired citizenship through him there are two aspects of this the substantive aspect of did she acquire citizenship and there's a procedural aspect of satisfied by the two thousand and fourteen decision of a u s c i s when they denied her motion to reopen her proceedings and noted that her older sister had acquired citizenship certificate so she was not legitimated by that however the problem in her case was that her father although he married her mother in apparent compliance with the laws of texas in one nine hundred seventy two when she was ten years old he had a prior and as of marriage and as a result the marriage to her mother was void however there is a very important distinction between being a child born out of wedlock and a child born of a void marriage a child born out of wedlock under immigration law has the father or the or the parent citizen parent as the father the father has to take certain affirmative steps to the judum it the child before the child this in her case twenty one or else she is not illegitimate the product of a void marriage such as here by contrast the fact of going through the marriage ceremony which is sometimes called a putative marriage automatically the judum meets the child under both texas and mexico unlock the texas law at issue was section twelve any time his mother and father have attempted to marry in apparent compliance with the laws of this day or another state or nation although the attempted marriage is or might be declared void and the child is born or conceived before or during the attempted marriage so that covers miss gonzalez when she was ten years old her parents went through that marriage ceremony in the state of texas even though she did not the father had not divorced his first wife the confusion in this case judging from which i accept partial responsibility it was that this this distinction between a product of a void marriage and being born out of wedlock was not adequately developed during the administrative proceedings and the immigration treated it all the time as having been born out of wedlock she filed her first in six hundred to get a certificate of citizenship or actually her mother filed it when she was ten years old and that application showed on its face that she was the product of her father's second marriage so that information was given to immigration from the very beginning she was unless at that point her father was in a nursing home and the very experienced immigration attorney who interviewed the family made findings that yes father's a u s citizen yes he spent enough time here and yes she was legitimate the marriage of her parents who she was ten years old in the city of texas but unfortunately they sent a letter to her father to come in for further investigation and he was in a nursing home he did not appear so that her father by then who is deceased he died in one thousand eight this application the line of how many times have your parents been married was left blank she was interviewed by a different officer but of course the first application was still in her follow she was interviewed by a different officer who apparently did not ask that question because those there were no checkmarks by those questions but we don't know whether she went on the basis of what the first officer had found or notice to her saying that they were going to revoke her certificate of citizenship on the around ish grounds quote because her parents her father had not been legally married she could never acquire citizenship through him so she they claimed that apparently they did not at that time understand both mexico and in texas law made her legitimate by virtue of this putative marriage she and her attorney at that time both claim that they did not receive that letter so they did not respond to him from one nine hundred ninety one when that letter was sent to two thousand and six nothing happened in two thousand  immigration sent another letter to her attorney saying we're going to cancel her certificate of citizenship come in and surrender it they complied they went in and the same day they filed a motion to reconsider that revocation that motion was pending until two thousand and eight when it was finally denied and she did not file an appeal from that administrative denial and that is one of the key questions in this case and key facts in this case in two thousand and fourteen through a different attorney she filed a motion to reopen those proceedings under the law regulations in effect at that time if you were once tonight in six hundred you couldn't file a second one except by virtue of a motion to reopen obviously they understand that citizenship is too important to say that just because she didn't make it the first time doesn't mean you can't come back later and prove your case later so another attorney filed a motion to reopen in two thousand and fourteen in two thousand and that was based in part on so then you are checked in on part o what was the additional information it was that she had her father had claimed her as his child before the i r s and claimed that that necessarily had to have been done in writing and under oath which is one of the one of the manners in which you can legitimated child but the evidence she presented of that was only a computer printout and she did not have access to the original documents that he had filed and so the but she was still treating it as was basically everyone at that time and is out of wedlock and seeking legitimation and not realizing that by statute she was illegitimate you know when her parents married so she was still going as of was everybody else as if she were born out of wedlock but she appealed that and the and out of wedlock and i had discovered these cases and so we went to court file the fifteen zero three action and the government claimed that because she had not done an administrative they said that the five year statute of limitations began to run in two thousand and eight but the statute of limitations can't run unless there's a cause of action so essentially they're saying that because she did not file an appeal at that time no cause of action accrued but the statute ran anyway and you know that really makes no sense and if you look at this court felons well this statute says any person in the united states can follow such an action with two exceptions in the two the sections are first that the issue of citizenship arose when you were in removal proceedings and the second is that you're in removal proceedings when you try to file your action and in that case the person had been  removed proceedings when the young truce filed in this court held that the person claimed but that would be an albatross around my neck because i would never be able to file a fifty three action because i was removal proceedings when it was first my citizenship was first asserted in this court said no we're not going to claim that that's an albatross around your neck because you can't wait till the proceedings are over and if you file something else requesting citizenship and that is tonight then you can go ahead and file a fifteen zero three action on that basis and we're saying that this is equivalent to that how can a statute run if there's never a cause of action which there never was and even if it did run by virtue of this motion to reopen it which the regulations authorize and recognize it susan chip is far too important to say that if you come up with new evidence or circumstances change or whatever you can't go back and and try again to get your certificate to citizenship at the same thing applies in this context the fact that she did not f administrative appeal in two thousand and eight cannot be an albatross around her neck forever saying that she would never be able to get proof of her u s citizenship as it is she's living here as an us citizen but a second class citizen she has she cannot vote she cannot get a driver's license because she doesn't have proof of her citizenship she cannot vote she cannot travel she cannot comply mn because she cannot prove that she is in u s citizens and the honor that's a question that i've asked myself and for which i have no answer from nineteen eighty three when she was granted the certificate two thousand nine hundred ninety one when they first sent out the letter so far as i know nothing happened and her attorney and she did not receive that letter and then from one nine hundred ninety one to two thousand and six again nothing happened that i'm aware of i have no idea how either of those events took place  it you know the first she knew that her citizenship was in question was in two thousand and six and she immediately filed a motion to reconsider that motion did mention in fact that she was a child of a void marriage but the thirty that was used was not the statute it was a decision that the government distinguished and then she did not appeal it there can be a million reasons why somebody does not file an administrative appealing thirty days it can be that you don't have six hundred dollars to file the appeal it can be that you're not aware that you know that you have grounds for appeal but in any event she didn't appeal it but in two thousand and fourteen she filed a motion to reopen again the attorney did not apparently recognize the difference between a void marriage and out of wedlock but she did file a motion to reopen it was adjudicated on the she did appeal it to  that exhaustion is is just a jurisdictional requirement to you must exhausted this type of remedies before going into federal court the design there is so that the administrative agencies have the opportunity to ceded that she's not willing to wait for assistantship determination and is willing to bring a p a claims against the state department for the denial of the passport so well can you blame or really isn't can you can you blame her on this legal issue and limitations that the seventh and eleventh circuits agree with your position i mean you can speak to that if if if you want to but it wouldn't wouldn't would we be creating a circuit representing to the court that that through this passport application that she can get a determination that she is of american citizen yes in a passport is stands for that proposition citizenship conveys the same rights and privileges of us citizenship as a passport would but in order to get the passport you need to be a u s citizen don't write it you can prove citizenship in your eligibility for  right now is that i believe the plaintiff has filed to pass or has had two passport applications denied and again has failed to file a fifteen zero three action within the five year oh if i was inarticulate on that issue point is also raising an a p a claim saying that in the event that she's precluded from filing a fifteen zero three action for the from the passports in aisle that she has a cause of action under the ministry of procedure act i do believe that if we were not to if the court was to not rule on the issue of when the statute of limitations kicks in and from which final administrative action such a limitation begins to run from that it runs against public policy and against congress intent in creating this action of limitations in order to adjudicate claims in federal court when their evidence is still intact when the witnesses are still policy you're right i'm getting one off the top of my head so let me return to you you gave me a forthright answer to my question about the other circuits but you didn't quite answer my question if we if we agree if we disagree with your position here will we be creating a split with the seven hundred eleven circuits yes you know and and you also point out believe two were not because they're not of the circuit level but eastern district of new york and district of the district of columbia is that right have reached the same the same conclusion as the seventh and eleventh circuit i believe the second circuit when there was the subsequent long standing ultimate outcome of the case but i agree there is it was all the circuits are unanimous on a report on the effect of the had thirty days to file an appeal to the and upon that failure to that mark the end of the decision making process and it had legal consequences so under  first of all i disagree that there is a circuit split because there is a very important distinction between the denial of a passport and the denial of this up occasion for certificate of citizenship first of all there is no regulation with respect to a passport that if you get new evidence or whatever you can come back and file a motion to reopen that is a regulatory provision that allows a person who what happens if the first time you couldn't find your father and you couldn't prove physical presence now you found your father and you can prove physical presence the regulations of law you in the context of a certificate of citizenship to file a motion to reopen and is what she did so this is still all of the original case from that point of view and as far as the cause of action and jurisdiction of this court in various filings well said that it is  can't do that and the case is that the government is saying the seventh circuit case actually that it was a fifteen or three action and they found that person was in the united states at the time the action was filed so they never went on the issue that you have here and with respect to the current litigation regarding the denial of her passport we discovered after we filed that fortunately we did include both a fifteen zero three action and an a p a action and we discovered after we had filed it that another attorney had filed an application for a passport for her back in two thousand and eleven and when it was denied had not filed because of action then there's nothing there's no regulation that allows you to to file for a second one in the renew that cause of action in that and we have that action pending and the government has filed a motion to dismiss our a p a claim on the grounds that it should have been done through fifty three a that is still pending before the district court but it's not it's not clear that the government is going to go along any way with the argument that he made here that she can do it through the a p a because they have a motion to dismiss pending to dismiss that cause of action and we can see that with respect to the passport we're not going to argue that there would be jurisdiction under fifteen zero three a with for the denial because we've discovered that in fact she did have a prior one that was not and did not exhaust it but the regulation very clear and there's a good reason for that if if there are all kinds of reasons why you may need to file a new application for a certificate of citizenship and citizenship if you have it is far too important to say too bad you tried once and you you failed you could almost say in this case that she failed with the first application back in one nine hundred seventy two because her father did not appear for the interview so for all we know that one was denied and was not appeal so you could say that that was the first followed the regulations in this regard she there's no question the government did not attempt to claim she is not a citizen she is a u s citizen but she is now a second class u s citizen because they're claiming now that there's no way she can get evidence to her sister is that because the facts and circumstances regarding her identical to her sister's back or her sisters have them because her father filed their birth certificates and under this court's decision  time the product of a void marriage is legitimate in the civil affects don't accrue to the parents if they were you know did this in bad faith but the children are not penalized because their parents marriage was for good so but her sisters have their certificates and the older sister is one of the ones it's in the records showing that clearly if the older sister got it then the father's a us citizen and he had enough time in the us to before the birth of the older sister and therefore by definition before her birth to transmit citizenship to her so the only issue is on substance is