Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01948/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01948-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: 08:1252(a)(2) Injunction for Deportation

---

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

Some of the documents admitted into evidence are copies of original birth and death

certificates and, as such, are appropriately referred to “certificates” in this order. Other

documents, however, are recent certifications of the contents of original birth, death, and

marriage records located in the civil registry of the State of Zacatecas in Mexico. Those

documents are referred to as “certifications” rather than “certificates”. 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Alfredo Carrillo-Lozano, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-1948-PHX-NVW

ORDER

On August 18, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit directed this Court

to make a de novo determination of Petitioner’s claim of United States citizenship

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5)(B), which instructs the district court to decide the

matter as if it were an action for declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201. On April

27, 2010, the Court conducted a bench trial at which both Petitioner and Respondent

submitted documentary and testimonial evidence relevant to the status of Petitioner’s

United States citizenship.1

 This order contains contingent findings of fact and describes

the remaining course to be taken before conclusions of law may be drawn.

Case 2:09-cv-01948-NVW Document 161 Filed 06/08/10 Page 1 of 11
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

Until the Final Pretrial Conference in this case, both Respondent and the Court were

under the impression that Petitioner was also asserting a claim of United States citizenship

under INA § 301(a)(7), 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(7). However, at the Conference, Petitioner

denied making, and therefore waived, any claim thereunder. His explicit waiver of any such

claim was repeated several times in the proceedings.

- 2 -

I. Legal Standards

It is undisputed that Petitioner’s mother is a United States citizen and that

Petitioner was born in Mexico on February 25, 1953. In determining the citizenship of a

claimant born abroad when one parent is a United States citizen, courts look to the

statutes in effect at the time of the claimant’s birth. Chau v. INS, 247 F.3d 1026, 1028 n.3

(9th Cir. 2001). The sole statute Petitioner relies upon in asserting United States

citizenship is INA § 309(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1409,2

 which provided at the time of his birth: 

[A] person . . . born outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held

to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had

the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and if the

mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of

its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.

Petitioner therefore bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that

(1) he was born out of wedlock and (2) his mother had been physically present in the

United States or one of its possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to his

birth. See Martinez-Madera v. Holder, 559 F.3d 937, 940 (9th Cir. 2009) (because

foreign birth gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of alienage, a claimant born abroad

bears the burden of proving his United States citizenship).

II. Findings of Fact

A. Petitioner’s Mother

Petitioner’s mother was Patricia Lozano, born to Agustin Lozano and Ma.

Guadalupe Gallegos. It is undisputed and evident from her birth certificate that Patricia

was born in Kansas on June 22, 1927. Although there is no admissible documentary

evidence of the length of time she remained in the United States after her birth, Petitioner

Case 2:09-cv-01948-NVW Document 161 Filed 06/08/10 Page 2 of 11
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 -

testified that his mother’s younger siblings were born in the United States and that she

attended elementary school in Kansas through at least the third grade. Based on that

evidence and the inherent likelihood that a person born in the United States remained in

the United States for at least one year if younger siblings were also born in the United

States, the Court finds that it is more likely than not that Patricia Lozano was physically

present in the United States for a continuous period of at least one year prior to

Petitioner’s birth in 1953.

B. Petitioner’s Father

Petitioner’s father was Macario Carrillo Garcia, born to J. Guadalupe Carrillo and

Juana Garcia. The evidence is in conflict with respect to his birth date. On the one hand,

the certification of his birth record indicates that he was born on March 4, 1933. The

certification of his death record, which indicates that he was 32 years old as of September

23, 1965, is consistent therewith. On the other hand, the certifications of the birth records

of Petitioner and his siblings, which indicate Macario Carrillo Garcia’s age at the time of

the births, reflect a variety of conflicting ages, none of which are consistent with Macario

Carrillo Garcia’s birth and death certifications. Because the certification of Macario

Carrillo Garcia’s birth record is very likely the most accurate and therefore reliable

evidence of his birth date, the Court is persuaded on balance that Macario Carrillo Garcia

was born on March 4, 1933.

C. Whether Petitioner’s Parents Were Married at the Time of his Birth

1. Findings Based on Admitted Evidence

The admitted evidence is in conflict with respect to whether Petitioner’s parents

were married at the time of his birth in 1953. The most probative evidence is a November

9, 2009 certification of a marriage record indicating that Petitioner’s parents were married

in Zacatecas, Mexico, on July 5, 1948. Although the document incorrectly certifies that

both Macario Carrillo Garcia and Patricia Lozano were 18 years old at the time, the other

Case 2:09-cv-01948-NVW Document 161 Filed 06/08/10 Page 3 of 11
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 -

particulars, including their names, their nationalities, and the names of their parents, are

entirely accurate. There is no evidence that Petitioner’s parents were ever divorced.

Petitioner argues, however, that the marriage was invalid from its inception

because Macario Carrillo Garcia was only 15 years old on July 5, 1948, and had failed to

obtain parental consent prior to marrying Petitioner’s mother. Pursuant to Zacatecas

Domestic Relations Law in effect at the time, the minimum age for marriage was 16 years

for males and 14 years for females. Ley de Relaciones Familiares, Chapter II, Article 18

(1964). In addition, individuals under the age of 21 were required to obtain parental

consent to marry. Id., Chapter II, Article 19. Failure to meet those requirements,

however, rendered the marriage merely voidable for a limited period of time. Id., Chapter

VII, Articles 108, 109, 123. Minority ceased to be a cause for nullifying the marriage

once children were born or once the minor had reached the age of 21 years and neither

spouse had previously sought to void the marriage. Id., Chapter VII, Article 18. Lack of

parental consent, on the other hand, was a basis for voiding the marriage only for 30 days

after the parents became aware of the marriage. Id., Chapter VII, Article 109. 

Here Petitioner’s oldest sibling and his parents’ first child, Juan Antonio Carrillo,

was born on June 24, 1949. Therefore, the marriage could be voided on the basis of

Macario Carrillo Garcia’s minority only until that date. There is simply no evidence that

it ever was. There is similarly no evidence that Macario Carrillo Garcia’s parents ever

took steps to nullify the marriage on grounds of lack of parental consent. If anything, the

available evidence suggests that the marriage continued well after July 5, 1948, or at the

very least that Petitioner’s parents believably held themselves out as married at least up to

the time Petitioner was born. By way of example, the certification of Juan Antonio

Carrillo’s birth record refers to him as the legitimate son of Macario Carrillo and his wife

Patricia Lozano. Similarly, the certification of the birth record of Maria Socorro Carrillo

Garcia, Petitioner’s older sister, indicates that she was born in 1951 and refers to her as

the legitimate daughter and second child of Macario Carrillo and his wife Patricia

Case 2:09-cv-01948-NVW Document 161 Filed 06/08/10 Page 4 of 11
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 -

Lozano, “married by civil and church ceremonies.” Finally, the certification of

Petitioner’s own birth record refers to him as the legitimate son and third child of Macario

Carrillo and his wife Patricia Lozano. Therefore, the marriage was not invalid due to

minority or lack of consent.

Petitioner maintains in the alternative that whatever marriage his parents may have

entered into was legally invalid because his father was already married to another woman.

According to Zacatecas Domestic Relations Law in effect at the time, the existence of a

prior marriage rendered any subsequent marriage voidable. Ley de Relaciones

Familiares, Chapter VII, Article 117 (1964). The same is not true, however, of the

reverse. A subsequent bigamous marriage could not invalidate a previously existing

marriage. See id.

Here the only evidence Petitioner offers in support of his contention that Macario

Carrillo Lozano was already married to another woman when he married Patricia Lozano

is the certification of the birth record of Petitioner’s half-brother, J. Victor Carrillo, and

the certification of Macario Carrillo Garcia’s death record. The birth certification

indicates that J. Victor Carrillo was born on July 10, 1952, as the legitimate first child of

Macario Carrillo and his wife Tomasa Rodarte. The death certification names Tomasa

Rodarte as Macario Carrillo Garcia’s spouse as of his September 23, 1965 death. While

this is some evidence that Macario Carrillo Garcia was married to Tomasa Rodarte and

not Patricia Lozano the year before Petitioner was born in 1953, the Court is not so

persuaded. 

For one, while there is direct evidence that Macario Carrillo Garcia and Patricia

Lozano were married in 1948, there is no direct evidence of a marriage solemnization

between Macario Carrillo Garcia and Tomasa Rodarte. Furthermore, there is no evidence

that Petitioner’s parents were ever divorced. Most importantly, while J. Victor Carrillo’s

birth certification suggests Macario Carrillo Garcia held himself out as married to Tomasa

Rodarte before the time of Petitioner’s birth in 1953, it does not prove that they were

Case 2:09-cv-01948-NVW Document 161 Filed 06/08/10 Page 5 of 11
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 -

married before Macario Carrillo Garcia’s marriage to Patricia Lozano. If there were two

purported marriages, there is simply no direct evidence indicating which marriage was

first in time. 

Therefore, the Court is left to draw the most persuasive inferences from existing

evidence. The fact that Macario Carrillo Garcia was a mere 15 years old when he married

Patricia Lozano in 1948 makes it less than likely that he was already married to another

woman at that time. The additional fact that he fathered his first child with Patricia

Lozano approximately three years before he fathered his first child with Tomasa Rodarte

substantiates that conclusion. The Court therefore finds on balance that Macario Carrillo

Garcia’s marriage to Patricia Lozano predated any assumed, purported, or actual marriage

to Tomasa Rodarte. As such, his marriage to Patricia Lozano could not have been

invalidated solely by any subsequent marriage to Tomasa Rodarte.

Petitioner nevertheless maintains that his parents were never married. In support,

he offers his own testimony and an affidavit from his deceased brother, Juan Antonio

Carrillo, that their mother told them as children and after she returned to the United States

that she had never married their father. It is a close question whether to believe their

mother told them that. In her circumstances, it is plausible that she would tell her

children that, even though it was not true. But other factors cut against the believability

of Petitioner’s assertion. Petitioner’s credibility suffers in light of his demeanor at trial

and his strong interest in proving he was born out of wedlock. His brother had a similar

interest in aiding Petitioner’s cause. The Court assesses the cross-currents of persuasion

as in equipose on whether Petitioner’s mother told him his parents had never married. 

Therefore, Petitioner has not carried his burden of persuasion on this particular fact, and

the Court finds that Petitioner’s mother did not tell Petitioner his parents had never

married.

Second, even if Patricia Lozano told her children that she had never married their

father, a number of interests other than the truth likely motivated her statements. For her

Case 2:09-cv-01948-NVW Document 161 Filed 06/08/10 Page 6 of 11
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 -

children’s own welfare she likely wished to diminish their attachment to a father who had

abandoned them all and whom Petitioner had never seen. She also likely hoped for a new

married life in her native land, which she found in a marriage to Francisco Orozco

Alcaraz in 1961 when Petitioner was 8 years old. By holding herself out as never married

to the children’s father, she avoided a social or legal cloud over her hopes and her later

married life. Third, and most importantly, any such statements by Petitioner’s mother are

persuasively contradicted by the several official documents that establish the existence of

a marriage between Petitioner’s parents. 

2. Unresolved Evidentiary and Legal Issues

Notwithstanding the above findings, the Court does not yet reach a conclusion as

to whether Petitioner is a United States citizen under INA § 309(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1409

(1950). To counter Respondent’s proof at trial of Petitioner’s parents’ marriage,

Petitioner offered into evidence proposed Exhibit 4B, a document that purports to be a

handwritten account of his parents’ marriage ceremony signed by his mother but possibly

not his father. Petitioner maintains that because his father did not sign the document, his

parents’ purported marriage is void. Upon inquiry by the Court, counsel for Respondent

acknowledged that Petitioner’s unauthenticated and possibly incomplete proposed exhibit

was obtained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement attachees based in Monterrey,

Mexico. Respondent delivered it to Petitioner, who offered it into evidence. Because the

document lacked attestation and final certification, it was tentatively excluded pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 44(a)(2) and Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). 

The Court indicated, however, that it may reconsider its ruling at a later time. In

addition, because the congruency between the handwritten document and the November

9, 2009 certification of Petitioner’s parents’ marriage record suggests that the certification

may have been derived in whole or in part from the handwritten document, the Court

inquired into the possibility of establishing a foundation for and obtaining a complete

copy of the handwritten document. Respondent indicated that such a task would be

Case 2:09-cv-01948-NVW Document 161 Filed 06/08/10 Page 7 of 11
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 -

extremely time-consuming and burdensome. Respondent also argued that pursuant to

Codigo Civil para el E.L. y S. De Zacatecas, Title VI, Chapter I, Article 46 (1964), the

handwritten document cannot be considered evidence of Petitioner’s parents’ marital

status because the November 9, 2009 marriage certification is conclusive evidence of

Petitioner’s parents’ marital status. Article 46, translated into English, states that a

person’s marital status is only proven by the registry’s respective records and that no

other document is admissible to prove marital status. At this time, however, it is unclear

whether the provision applies to certifications of records in the registry, such as the

November 9, 2009 certification of Petitioner’s parents’ marriage record, in addition to the

original records themselves. There is also uncertainty as to whether the handwritten

document is a copy of the original record from which the certification was derived.

To avoid unnecessary expense and delay, the Court issued an order on May 3,

2010, directing Respondent to submit additional briefing on the legal significance of what

Petitioner’s excluded Exhibit 4B purports to show. If the possible absence of Macario

Carrillo Garcia’s signature on the document has no material bearing on the validity of his

marriage to Patricia Lozano, there is no need to ascertain its origin or obtain a complete

copy. However, Respondent subsequently moved for a substantial extension of time in

which to submit the additional briefing, explaining that the Law Library of Congress

would be unable to render assistance within the time provided by the order and that the

Department of State would be asked for assistance. (Doc. # 156.)

 The legal significance of Petitioner’s proposed Exhibit 4B turns on seemingly

straightforward but as-of-yet unknown principles of Mexican law, and more specifically,

Zacatecas law. Therefore, the Court concludes in the interest of economy that it should

appoint an independent expert pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 706(a) to render a written

opinion on the legal significance of proposed Exhibit 4B under principles of Zacatecas

law in 1948. The Court has conferred with and obtained the consent of Lic. Nicolas Jesus

Olea Osuna to serve as a court-appointed expert. Mr. Olea is a Mexican attorney of the

Case 2:09-cv-01948-NVW Document 161 Filed 06/08/10 Page 8 of 11
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 -

highest skill, reputation, and ethical standards, long known to this Court. His curriculum

vitae is attached to this order. Mr. Olea will be called upon to give a written opinion on

the following questions:

(1) Assuming without deciding that Exhibit 4B is a copy of the original record

of Petitioner’s parents’ marriage solemnization on July 5, 1948, and

assuming Petitioner’s father did not sign the original record, did the absence

of his signature invalidate the marriage under Zacatecas law?

(2) If so, is the November 9, 2009 certification of Petitioner’s parents’ marriage

record conclusive evidence of the content of the original record, so as to

preclude consideration of direct evidence of the original record to prove that

Petitioner’s father did not sign the original record? 

In addition to providing a written opinion on the above issues in English, Mr. Olea will be

asked to include copies of the applicable provisions of Zacatecas law, together with

English translations thereof, in an appendix to the opinion. Mr. Olea’s fees will be

assessed against Respondent pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 706(b), as Petitioner lacks the

resources to pay his share of the fees. 

If the Court concludes, after consideration of the opinion of Mr. Olea, that the

assumed absence of Macario Carrillo Garcia’s signature on proposed Exhibit 4B would

void his marriage to Patricia Lozano, the Court will consider requiring Respondent to

explore the provenance of the document and obtain a complete copy thereof to determine

whether or not it includes Macario Carrillo Garcia’s signature.

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Lic. Nicolas Jesus Olea Osuna is appointed 

pursuant to Rule 706(a), Federal Rules of Evidence, to render a written opinion as

provided in this order.

Dated: June 8, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01948-NVW Document 161 Filed 06/08/10 Page 9 of 11
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

NICOLÁS JESÚS OLEA OSUNA

Tetabiate 859 Oriente, Ciudad Obregón, Sonora, 85010

(52) 644 4151311

njolea@gmail.com

EDUCATION

1971-1977 University of Sonora, Hermosillo, Sonora, México.

Licenciate in Legal Sciences (J.D. Equivalent).

Thesis: “Testamentary Trust”.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

1987-Present Olea Osuna Abogados, S.C., Obregón, Sonora.

Focused on corporate law, banking and foreign investment

regulations, administrative law, commercial law, agrarian law, civil

law, in-bond industry, real estate law and complex litigation in such

areas. Worked with foreign nationals and Mexican subsidiaries of

foreign entities

1980-1987 Empresas Matco, S.A. de C.V., Obregón, Sonora.

Worked as head of legal and credit and collections departments.

1978-1981 Unibanco, S.A., Obregón, Sonora.

Head of legal and trust departments.

1977-1979 Prosecutors Office, Nogales, Sonora.

Worked as the City Attorney.

1976-1978 Third Criminal Court, Hermosillo, Sonora.

Law clerk in charge legal proceedings and drafting judicial

resolutions. 

1975-1977 Third Civil Court, Hermosillo, Sonora.

Law clerk in charge of Notifications Department.

ASSOCIATIONS

2009-Present La Salle Northwestern University, A.C. Member of the Board of

Directors.

2008-Present Monterrey Institute of Technology (ITESM) in Ciudad Obregon’s

Campus. Member of the Board of Directors.

2007-Present Megacable, S.A.B. de C.V. Member of the Board of Directors,

Chairman of Corporate Governance Committee and member of the

Audit Committee.

Megacable is the largest cable provider in the country and the third

largest telecommunications company in Latin America.

Case 2:09-cv-01948-NVW Document 161 Filed 06/08/10 Page 10 of 11
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

1998-Present Red Cross Mexico in Ciudad Obregon. Member of the Board of

Directors.

1987-Present Empresas Matco, S.A. de C.V., Inmobiliaria Matco, S.A. de C.V.

Commissioner supervising the administration of both companies.

Empresas Matco is a Caterpillar dealer in 4 states of northwestern

Mexico.

1994-1998 Cajeme City Council. President of Public Security Committee.

1994-1997 Sister Cities Committee Obregon-Tucson. President.

LANGUAGES

Spanish (native speaker), English (fluent).

Case 2:09-cv-01948-NVW Document 161 Filed 06/08/10 Page 11 of 11