Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-00097/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-00097-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 462
Nature of Suit: Naturalization, Petition For Hearing of Denial
Cause of Action: 8:1446 Petition for Naturalization Hearing

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

VICTOR MANUEL BRITO SANCHEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, United States 

Attorney General, 

Defendant. 

Civ. No. 2:18-CV-00097-KJM-DB 

AMENDED FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER 

On October 20, 2020, the court conducted a final pretrial conference. Counsel 

Nienke Schouten appeared on behalf of plaintiff; counsel Victor Lawrence appeared for 

defendant. On October 29, 2020, the court issued its final pretrial order, ECF No. 38. On 

November 4, 2020, the parties timely filed joint objections to the final pretrial order. Good cause 

appearing, the court makes the following amended findings and orders: 

JURISDICTION/VENUE 

Jurisdiction is predicated on 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5)(B). The Ninth Circuit 

determined transfer to this court was appropriate and requested this court make a factual 

///// 

Case 2:18-cv-00097-KJM-DB Document 43 Filed 11/10/20 Page 1 of 12
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 

determination on plaintiff’s claim to be a U.S. citizen from birth. Jurisdiction and venue are not 

contested. 

JURY/NON-JURY 

The parties agree this matter must proceed by bench trial. 

UNDISPUTED FACTS 

Joint Undisputed Facts 

1. The Mexican government has provided an official certified birth registry for Victor 

Brito Sanchez with place of birth, Coatlan del Rio, Mexico, and date of birth, April 1, 

1990. 

2. The certified birth registry shows a registration date of July 18, 1990. 

3. The certified birth registry contains the names of Mr. Brito’s parents as well as the 

name of his maternal and paternal grandparents. 

4. Plaintiff Brito’s biological mother and father, were both born in Mexico, began living 

together in Coatlan del Rio, Morelos, Mexico in approximately 1985. 

5. Ms. Lopez testified that her son Victor was born on April 1, 1990 in the United States. 

6. Ms. Lopez has no photographs or medical records to prove she gave birth to Victor in 

the United States, and she does not possess a certified document from any 

governmental agency or any hospital showing that Victor was born in the United 

States. 

7. Ms. Lopez testified at her deposition that she came to the United States in May 1989 

with “a lot of people.” At her deposition Ms. Lopez could only identify Victor’s 

biological father and her daughter who was two years old at the time. 

8. Ms. Lopez was convicted on April 28, 2016 for the crime of Grand Theft of Labor in 

violation of Section 487(a) of the California Penal Code, a misdemeanor.1

9. The whereabouts of plaintiff’s biological father are unknown. 

10. Plaintiff has no official records to demonstrate that he was born in the United States 

and has no independent proof as to where he was born. He relies only on his mother’s 

testimony as to where he was born. 

DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES 

The parties’ principal disputed fact is where plaintiff was born, in the United 

States or Mexico. 

///// 

1

 The court notes this is a different crime and different violation of the California Penal Code than 

the one identified in the Amended Joint Pretrial Conference Statement, ECF No. 35, and Final 

Pretrial Order, ECF No. 38. 

Case 2:18-cv-00097-KJM-DB Document 43 Filed 11/10/20 Page 2 of 12
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3 

SPECIAL FACTUAL INFORMATION 

None. 

DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES 

Defendants have filed a motion in limine as discussed below. 

STIPULATIONS/AGREED STATEMENTS 

The parties agree plaintiff has no official records to demonstrate he was born in the 

United States and has no independent proof of where he was born. Plaintiff relies only on his 

mother’s testimony as to where he was born. The parties agree Mr. Brito’s testimony is 

unnecessary to the court’s factual determination regarding where he was born and neither plaintiff 

nor defendant will call him as a witness. 

RELIEF SOUGHT 

Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of a factual determination that he was born in the 

United States. Defendants seek a factual determination that plaintiff was born in Mexico. 

POINTS OF LAW 

There are no disputes about the applicable law and legal standards. The Ninth 

Circuit has set forth a clear framework for cases transferred to district courts as provided by 

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5)(B): 

The government bears the ultimate burden of establishing all facts 

supporting deportability by clear, unequivocal, and convincing 

evidence. When, however, the government offers evidence of a 

foreign birth, a rebuttable presumption of alienage arises, shifting the 

burden to the alleged citizen to prove citizenship. Upon production 

by a petitioner of substantial credible evidence of the citizenship 

claim, this presumption bursts and the burden shifts back to the 

government to prove the respondent removable by clear and 

convincing evidence. 

Mondaca-Vega v. Lynch, 808 F.3d 413, 419 (9th Cir. 2015) (citations and quotations omitted). 

ABANDONED ISSUES 

During removal proceedings in Immigration Court, the government introduced a 

document found in plaintiff’s school records purportedly from a medical clinic in Wildomar, 

Case 2:18-cv-00097-KJM-DB Document 43 Filed 11/10/20 Page 3 of 12
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4 

California. The document purported to show Victor Brito Sanchez was born at that clinic. The 

parties agree this record lacks proper authentication and should not be considered by the court as 

part of the factual determination regarding where plaintiff was born. Accordingly, the 

authenticity of the Wildomar birth certificate is an abandoned evidentiary issue. 

WITNESSES 

Each party may call any witnesses designated by the other. 

A. The court will not permit any other witness to testify unless:

(1) The party offering the witness demonstrates that the witness is for the

purpose of rebutting evidence that could not be reasonably anticipated at

the pretrial conference, or

(2) The witness was discovered after the pretrial conference and the

proffering party makes the showing required in “B,” below.

B. Upon the post pretrial discovery of any witness a party wishes to present at

trial, the party shall promptly inform the court and opposing parties of the existence of the 

unlisted witnesses so the court may consider whether the witnesses shall be permitted to testify at 

trial. The witnesses will not be permitted unless: 

(1) The witness could not reasonably have been discovered prior to the

discovery cutoff;

(2) The court and opposing parties were promptly notified upon discovery

of the witness;

(3) If time permitted, the party proffered the witness for deposition; and

(4) If time did not permit, a reasonable summary of the witness’s testimony

was provided to opposing parties.

C. The parties’ respective lists of trial witnesses, along with a brief statement

of the nature of the testimony to be proffered, are attached as Exhibit A for plaintiff and 

Exhibit B for defendant. 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:18-cv-00097-KJM-DB Document 43 Filed 11/10/20 Page 4 of 12
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

5 

EXHIBITS, SCHEDULES AND SUMMARIES 

Plaintiff’s exhibits are identified in Exhibit C. At trial, plaintiff’s exhibits shall be 

listed numerically. 

Defendant’s exhibits are identified in Exhibit D. At trial defendant’s exhibits 

shall be listed alphabetically, first A, B, C, etc., then AA, BB, CC, etc., and so on. 

The court encourages the parties to generate a joint exhibit list to the extent 

possible. Joint Exhibits shall be identified as JX and listed numerically, e.g., JX-1, JX-2. 

All exhibits must be pre-marked. 

The parties must prepare exhibit binders for use by the court at trial, with a side tab 

identifying each exhibit in accordance with the specifications above. Each binder shall have an 

identification label on the front and spine. 

The parties must exchange exhibits no later than twenty-eight days before trial. 

Any objections to exhibits are due no later than fourteen days before trial. 

A. The court will not admit exhibits other than those identified on the exhibit

lists referenced above unless: 

1. The party proffering the exhibit demonstrates that the exhibit is for the

purpose of rebutting evidence that could not have been reasonably

anticipated, or

2. The exhibit was discovered after the issuance of this order and the

proffering party makes the showing required in Paragraph “B,” below.

B. Upon the discovery of exhibits after the discovery cutoff, a party shall

promptly inform the court and opposing parties of the existence of such exhibits so that the court 

may consider their admissibility at trial. The exhibits will not be received unless the proffering 

party demonstrates: 

1. The exhibits could not reasonably have been discovered earlier;

2. The court and the opposing parties were promptly informed of their

existence;

///// 

and

Case 2:18-cv-00097-KJM-DB Document 43 Filed 11/10/20 Page 5 of 12
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

6 

3. The proffering party forwarded a copy of the exhibits (if physically

possible) to the opposing party. If the exhibits may not be copied the

proffering party must show that it has made the exhibits reasonably

available for inspection by the opposing parties.

DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS 

Counsel must lodge the sealed original copy of any deposition transcript to be used 

at trial with the Clerk of the Court on the first day of trial. 

FURTHER DISCOVERY OR MOTIONS 

Discovery is closed. Plaintiff withdrew his motion to extend discovery based on 

the agreements contained in the parties’ Amended Joint Pretrial Conference Statement. 

AMENDMENTS/DISMISSALS 

There are no amendments to pleadings or additions/substitutions of parties. 

SETTLEMENT 

The court is not ordering the parties to attend a court-convened settlement 

conference. 

MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

Defendant filed a motion in limine to exclude plaintiff’s expert witness, Gretchen 

Kuhner, ECF No. 36. At hearing the court set a briefing schedule. See Minutes, ECF No. 37. 

Plaintiff’s opposition is to be filed by October 30, 2020 and defendant’s reply is to be filed by 

November 6, 2020, whereupon the matter will be submitted for resolution by written order. 

If a party wishes to contest the court’s pretrial ruling after it issues, it must do so 

through a proper motion or objection, or otherwise forfeit appeal on such grounds. See Fed. R. 

Evid. 103(a); Tennison v. Circus Enters., Inc., 244 F.3d 684, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Where a 

district court makes a tentative in limine ruling excluding evidence, the exclusion of that evidence 

may only be challenged on appeal if the aggrieved party attempts to offer such evidence at trial.”) 

(alteration, citation and quotation omitted). If the court denies the defendant’s motion in limine 

and defendant wishes to renew the challenge at trial, it should alert the court, at which point the 

court may grant limited voir dire before plaintiff’s expert may be called to testify. 

Case 2:18-cv-00097-KJM-DB Document 43 Filed 11/10/20 Page 6 of 12
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

7 

JOINT STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

The parties agree on the undisputed statement of facts above. 

SEPARATE TRIAL OF ISSUES 

The court will not try any issues separately. 

IMPARTIAL EXPERTS/LIMITATION OF EXPERTS 

The court does not plan to appoint an impartial expert. 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES 

No party seeks attorneys’ fees. 

TRIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER 

 Parties jointly request a trial protective order with respect to Ms. Lopez’s 

immigration Form I-918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status, submitted to the United States 

Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); their request extends to any testimony related to 

the form. The protective order is sought in light of the nondisclosure provisions of the federal 

Violence against Women Act (VAWA). The court directs the parties to file a joint proposed 

protective order no less than seven days prior to trial. 

MISCELLANEOUS 

Trial briefs are due seven days before trial. The court directs defense counsel to 

provide a paper copy of the administrative record from the Ninth Circuit by delivering it promptly 

to the office of the Clerk of Court, with the option of concurrently submitting a text searchable 

electronic copy. 

ESTIMATED TIME OF TRIAL/TRIAL DATE 

A bench trial is set for November 19, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. before the Honorable 

Kimberly J. Mueller. Trial is anticipated to last one day. As with the October 20, 2020 final 

pretrial conference, the court has determined that the COVID-19 pandemic necessitates trial be 

conducted by videoconference to protect the health and safety of all those involved in the 

proceeding. The court notes plaintiff’s objection to trial by videoconference but overrules the 

objection based on current public health data for the Sacramento division of the Eastern District 

of California, showing COVID-19 has not been suppressed. The Courtroom Deputy will 

Case 2:18-cv-00097-KJM-DB Document 43 Filed 11/10/20 Page 7 of 12
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

8 

communicate with counsel in advance of trial regarding trial procedure and housekeeping matters 

relating to the use of videoconference technology for an evidentiary proceeding of this kind. 

DATED: November 10, 2020. 

Case 2:18-cv-00097-KJM-DB Document 43 Filed 11/10/20 Page 8 of 12
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

9 

EXHIBIT A 

PLAINTIFF’S WITNESS LIST 

1. Ms. Rosa Lopez, 1300 Cambridge Street, Novato, California 94947, in person as a 

witness. Ms. Lopez is the Plaintiff’s biological mother. 

2. Ms. Gretchen Kuhner, located at Avenida México 188, Colonia del Carmén, Coyoacan, 

Mexico City, Mexico, in person, as an expert witness. Ms. Kuhner’s area of expertise is 

migration studies.2

2

 As noted, defendant filed a motion in limine to exclude the testimony and expert report of 

plaintiff’s designated expert witness, Gretchen Kuhner. The court will resolve the matter by 

written order once the motion has been fully briefed. 

Case 2:18-cv-00097-KJM-DB Document 43 Filed 11/10/20 Page 9 of 12
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

10 

EXHIBIT B 

DEFENDANT’S WITNESS LIST 

1. Deportation Officer Jaime Grasso in person as a witness. Officer Grasso works for U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in San 

Francisco, California. 

2. Ms. Rosa Lopez to testify as an adverse witness. 

Case 2:18-cv-00097-KJM-DB Document 43 Filed 11/10/20 Page 10 of 12
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

11 

EXHIBIT C 

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT LIST 

Plaintiff will present the following exhibits: 

1. A copy of an immigration Form I-918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status, signed 

and submitted by Ms. Rosa Lopez to USCIS (United States Citizenship and 

Immigration Services) for an immigration benefit; 

2. “Questionnaire on the Maintenance of Children.” This form from the California 

Department of Social Services was signed by Rosa Lopez and dated as July 24, 1995; 

3. Plaintiff Kuhner’s Expert Report.3

3 Id. 

Case 2:18-cv-00097-KJM-DB Document 43 Filed 11/10/20 Page 11 of 12
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

12 

EXHIBIT D 

DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT LIST 

Defendant will present the following exhibits: 

A. Mexican Birth Registry for Victor Brito Sanchez; 

B. Document from Victor Brito Sanchez’s A-File which caused ICE Deportation Officer 

to investigate Mr. Sanchez’s alienage; 

C. Plaintiff’s Updated Responses to Defendant’s First Set of Requests for Admissions to 

Plaintiff. 

D. A copy of the conviction record demonstrating that Ms. Lopez was convicted on April 

28, 2016 for the crime of Grand Theft of Labor in violation of Section 487(a) of the 

California Penal Code, a misdemeanor. 

Case 2:18-cv-00097-KJM-DB Document 43 Filed 11/10/20 Page 12 of 12