Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02519/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02519-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gary Anderson
Petitioner
Eric H. Holder Jr.
Respondent

Document Text:

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

----oo0oo----

GARY ANDERSON,

Petitioner,

 v.

 ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney

General,

Respondent. /

NO. CIV. 2:09-2519 WBS JFM

(Court of Appeals No. 08-73946)

ORDER RE: EX PARTE REQUEST TO

HOLD PROCEEDINGS IN ABEYANCE

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court pursuant to a transfer

order of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on May 22,

2009, ordering the court to hold a hearing on petitioner Gary

Anderson’s argument that he is a citizen of the United States

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5). Petitioner now requests the

court to hold this matter in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s

opinion in United States v. Flores-Villar, 563 F.3d 990 (9th Cir.

Case 2:09-cv-02519-WBS -JFM Document 27 Filed 03/29/10 Page 1 of 4
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

2008), cert. granted, --- S. Ct. ----, 2010 WL 1005955 (Mar. 22,

2010).

In Flores-Villar, the Ninth Circuit upheld the

constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g), which states that a

child born outside of the United States to a non-citizen mother

can receive United States citizenship based on the father’s

citizenship if the father has maintained a continuous physical

presence within the United States for five years prior to the

child’s birth after the father’s fourteenth birthday. See 8

U.S.C. § 1401(g); Flores-Villar, 536 F.3d at 997. The plaintiff

in Flores-Villar challenged the five-year physical presence

requirement on the basis of age and sex discrimination in

violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, arguing that the one year

physical presence requirement that applies to citizen mothers who

have children with non-citizens outside of the United States

should also apply to citizen fathers. Id. The Supreme Court

granted a writ of certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit’s

decision to uphold the constitutionality of § 1401(g) on March

22, 2010. 

The issues before the Supreme Court in Flores-Villar

are not identical to or necessary for the resolution of this

case. Unlike the father in Flores-Villar, Ted Anderson is not

petitioner’s biological father. Ted Anderson also did not adopt

petitioner at the time of his birth and was not married to

petitioner’s mother at the time of adoption. Instead, petitioner

argues that he acquired citizenship when Ted Anderson adopted him

and that Ted Anderson should be treated as if he were

petitioner’s biological father for immigration purposes from the

Case 2:09-cv-02519-WBS -JFM Document 27 Filed 03/29/10 Page 2 of 4
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

moment of petitioner’s birth.

The success of petitioner’s argument will turn

primarily on the significant legal question of whether petitioner

acquired citizenship through adoption and whether Ted Anderson

should be treated as petitioner’s biological father from birth as

a result. The Supreme Court’s decision in Flores-Villar thus

would become relevant only if this court first holds that it is

possible for petitioner to acquire citizenship through his

adoptive father in the same way as he would through a biological

parent. 

Petitioner has also presented other theories in this

action that will not be impacted by Flores-Villar. Specifically,

petitioner argues that he also acquired United States citizenship

through his biological father, Harry Gitelman, at birth. (See

Docket No. 15 (Pet’r’s Pretrial Statement) at 4:17-20, 12:1-9.) 

The Supreme Court’s pending decision will have no impact on this

theory, since petitioner acknowledges that Gitelman meets the

five-year continuous physical presence requirement. (Id. at 

12:1-9.) The impact of Flores-Villar is therefore attenuated

given that the issue under review by the Supreme Court may never

become relevant in this matter due to the number of other legal

theories at play. 

This court is under a mandate from the Ninth Circuit to

determine petitioner’s citizenship pursuant to § 1252(b)(5). 

Over six months have passed since this matter was transferred to

this court for that purpose. If the Ninth Circuit had wanted

this court to wait for Flores-Villar to be decided by the Supreme

Court before ruling, it could have said so. It would not be in

Case 2:09-cv-02519-WBS -JFM Document 27 Filed 03/29/10 Page 3 of 4
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

the interest of efficiency, fairness, or judicial economy to

further delay the hearing on this matter in order to wait for a

ruling on an issue that may not impact the court’s analysis.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s request to

hold this matter in abeyance be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

DATED: March 26, 2010

Case 2:09-cv-02519-WBS -JFM Document 27 Filed 03/29/10 Page 4 of 4