N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M IC HAEL GAR

FIELD R OSE, Pe t i tione r,
v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 11-73778 Age n c y No. A040-093-704
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 20, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TALLM AN, PAR KER , ** and C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione r M i c ha e l Ga

rfie ld R ose 1 pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s ’ s (B IA’ s) de c ision a ffirm ing a n Im m igration Judge ’ s (IJ’ s) 

# FIL ED JAN 24 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble B arrington D. Pa

rke r, Jr., Unite d State s C irc u i t Judge for the U.S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Se c ond C i rc uit, sitting by de s igna tion. 1 This c a se involve s se ve ra l pe ople who sha re the la s t na

m e R ose . To avoid c onfusion, were fe r to the R ose s by the i r first na

m e s.orde r of re m ova l . M ic h a e l a rgue s tha t the IJ e rrone ously

orde re d him

re m ove d be c a use he obta ine d de rivative U.S. c itiz e nship from his m othe r. Wh e the r M ic ha e l obta ine d de rivative c i tiz e nship turns on the ide ntity of M ic h a e l’ s fathe r. If M ic ha e l’ s fathe r is Ha

rry R o se , the m a

n who m arrie d M ic ha e l’ s m othe r a fte r M ic ha e l’ s birth out of we dloc k, the n M ic h a e l is not a c itiz e n of the Unite d State s and the gove rnm e n t c an de port him . If M ic ha e l ’ s fathe r is a ny one othe r tha

n Harry , M ic ha e l is a

c itiz e n of the Unite d State s a nd the gove rnm e n t c annot deport him
. Se e 8 U.S.C
. § 1432(a ) (re pe a le d 2000). 2 W e have jurisdic tion to re v ie w fina l orde rs of re m o va l unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a nd we grant M ic h a e l’ s pe t ition for
re vie w. 1. Whe n we first c onside re d M i c ha e l’ s pe tition for re vie w, we found a ge nuine i ssue of m ate ria l fa c t re ga rding his c itiz e nship. W e e nte re d a n orde r holding the

pe tition for re vie w in a

be y anc e and tra

nsfe rre d M ic ha e l’ s c l a im

to

2 Unde r form e r § 1432(a ), unm arrie d m inor c hildre n born outside the Unite d State s to a l ie n pa

re nts a utom atic a lly

ga ine d c itiz e nship if they c ould show that the y ha d be e n la

wfully a dm itte d a

nd c ould de m onstra

te e ithe r: (1) “ [t] he natura liz ation of thepa

re nt ha ving le ga l c ustody

of the c hild whe n the re ha [d] be e n a le ga l se pa

ra tion of thepa

re n t s” ; or (2) “ the natura liz ation of them othe r if the c hild wa s born out of we dloc k a nd the pate rnity

of the c hild ha [d] not be e n e sta blishe d by le gitim ation.” 8 U.S.C . § 1432(a) (re p e a le d 2000). “ [D] e rivative c itiz e nship is de t e rm ine d unde r the la w in e ffe c t at [the ] tim e the c ritic a l e ve nts giving riseto e ligibility

oc c urre d.” Minasy an v . Gonzale s , 401 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th C ir. 2005). Se c tion 1432(a ) wa s in e ffe c t

whe n M ic ha e l’ s m othe r natura liz e d in 1988 a nd thus a pplie s in this c a se . 2c itiz e nship to the Unite d State s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na for a he aring pursua

nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(5)(B ). In an unusua l ruling, the

distric t c ourt found tha

t the e vide nc e of M ic ha e l’ s pate rnity wa s in pe rfe c t e quipoise

— that is, Ha

rry is e qua lly

like ly to be M ic ha e l’ s fa the r a s he is not

to be M ic ha e l’ s fathe r. The c ha nc e s a re fifty -fifty . In na

tiona lity
c a se s tra nsfe rre d a s de c la

ra tory judgm e nt a c tions, were v ie w the distric t c o urt’ s findings of fa c t

for “ c le ar e rror,” Mondac a-Ve ga v . Ly n c h , 808 F.3d 413, 417 (9th C ir. 2015) (e n ba

nc ), a nd the re c ord he re supports the distric t c ourt’ s c onc lusion that the e vide nc e wa s inc onc lusive
. M ic h a e l’ s pa te rnity re m a ins unknown. 2. “ Unde r § 1252(b)(5)(B ), we re fe r proc e e dings to the distric t c ourt for the s olepurpose of re solving a ‘ ge nuine issue of m ate ria l fa c t.’ ” Id. at 424 (e m pha sis a dde d ) (quoting 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(5)(B )). Afte r transfe r to the distric t
c ourt unde r § 1252(b)(5)(B ), a se pa ra te a ppe a l to this c ourt “ [is] unne c e ssa ry . . . be c a use we ne ve r re linquish[] jurisdic tion ove r [the pe tition for re vie w] whe n we transfe r[] it for a

lim ite d purpose to the distric t c ourt.” Ande rson v . Holde r , 673 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th C ir. 2012). “ In fa c t, it is doubtful tha t the distric t c ourt’ s findings of fa c t

and c onc lusions of la

w [are ] se pa

ra te ly a ppe a l a ble at a ll.” Id. To
re solve M ic ha e l’ s pe tition for re vie w, we a pply the le ga l fram e work a

pplic a ble to

3re m ova l proc e e d ings a s e sta blishe d by

our re c e nt e n ba

nc de c ision in Mondac a-Ve

ga , 808 F.3d a

t 419. The gove rnm e n t m

ust prove “ a ll fa c ts supporting de porta bility by c le ar, une quivoc a l, a

nd c onvinc ing e vide nc e ” in a re m ova l proc e e ding. Id. (quoting C hau v . IN S , 247 F.3d 1026, 1029 n.5 (9th C ir. 2001)). M ic ha e l doe s not dispute that he wa s born in Ja

m a ic a , a nd the pa rtie s a g re e tha

t this give s rise to a

“ re butta ble pre sum

ption of a lie n a ge ” tha

t shifts the

burde n to M ic ha e l to prove
c itiz e nship. Id. (quoting C hau , 247 F.3d a

t 1029 n.5). If thepe titione r in a
re m ova l proc e e d ing produc e s “ ‘ substa ntia l c re dible e vide nc e ’ of [his] c itiz e nship
c la im , this pre s um

ption bursts a

nd the burde n shifts ba c k

to the gove rnm e nt to

‘ p rov[e ] the re sponde nt re m ova ble by c le ar and c onvinc ing e v ide nc e .’ ” Id. (se c ond a lte ra tion in origina l) (quoting Ay ala-Villanuev a v . Holde r , 572 F.3d 736, 737 n.3 (9th C ir. 2009)).

“ Substa n tia l e vide nc e is ‘ m ore tha n a m e re sc i ntilla ,’ . . . but le ss tha n a pre p onde ranc e .” S

a e le e v . C hate r , 94 F.3d 520, 522 (9th C ir. 1996) (quoting Ric h ardson v . Pe rale

s , 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)). He re , the e vide nc e le d the distric t c o urt to de te rm ine tha t no “pa rtic ula r pat e rnity sc e na

rio is m ore like l y

tha n any othe r,” i.e
. , tha

t the e vide nc e wa s in pe rfe c t e quipoise . C ritic a lly , the gove rnm e nt did not a

ppe a l this de te rm ination; a n d, with thee vide n c e hove ring a t
4the fifty

y ard line , the distric t c ourt’ s “ e quipoise ” finding ne c e ssa rily e sta blishe s that M ic ha e l m e t his burde n of produc ing a t le a st “ substa

n tia l c re d ible e vide nc e ” that Ha rry is not his fa

the r and tha

t he is a U.S. c i tiz e n. B e c a use M ic ha e l re butte d the fore ign birth pre sum ption, se e Mondac a-Ve

ga , 808 F.3d a

t 419, theburde n shifte d ba c k to thegove rnm e nt to provea l l fa c ts supporting re m ova l “by

c l e ar, une quivoc a l, a

nd c onvinc i ng e vide nc e , ” Be re ny i v
. Dist. Dir., IN

S, 385 U.S. 630, 636 (1967) (quoting W oodby v . IN S , 385 U.S. 276, 286 (1966)). The distric t c ourt’ s ruling tha t the e vide nc e wa s e qua lly ba la nc e d dic t ate s our c onc lusion tha t the gove rnm e nt fa ile d to prove by c le a r, une quivoc a l,
and c onvinc ing e v ide nc e tha t M ic ha e l is not a

c itiz e n. The B IA did not e xpre ssly re vie w the IJ’ s ruling re ga rding M ic ha e l’ s pate rnity be c a use it c onc lude d tha

t M ic ha e l wa s not pursuing the the ory tha t Ha rry wa s not his biologic a l fathe r and tha t his fa the r did not le gitim iz e him by m arry ing his m othe r. B ut in his pro se brie fing be fore the B IA, M ic ha e l a rgue d tha t he obta ine d de rivative c i tiz e nship from his m othe r be c a

use “ he m e [t] a ll the
c onditions of INA § 321(a )(3)(i)-(ii).” This inc l ude d tha t his biologic a l fathe r ne ve r le gitim iz e d

him by m arry ing his mothe r. The B IA e rre d whe n it c onc lude d that M ic ha e l’ s sole the ory

on a ppe a l wa s tha

t his pa re n t s ha d se pa ra te d be fore he turne d e ighte e n. Se e Sagay dak v . Gonzale

s , 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th C ir. 2005).
5“ Whe re , a s he re , only pure ly le ga l issue s re m a in, it ‘ would se rve no purpose ’ to re m a nd to thea ge nc y . ” Me dina-Lara v . Holde r , 771 F.3d 1106, 1118 (9th C ir. 2014) (quoting K

arimi v . Holde r , 715 F.3d 561, 565 (4th C ir. 2013)). As in othe r c a se s whe re we have found re m and ina ppropria t e , “ the e vide nc e in the re c ord
e ithe r supports thefinding of re m ova bility or it doe s not. No furthe r a g e n c y e xpe rtise is re quire d to m ake tha t de te rm inat ion.” Ruiz-Vidal v. Gonzale s , 473 F.3d 1072, 1080 (9th C ir. 2007), abrogate d on othe r grounds by K w ong v . Holde r , 671 F.3d 872 (9th C ir. 2011); ac c ord Fe rnande z-Ruiz v . Gonzale

s , 466 F.3d 1121, 1133 (9th C ir. 2006). W e thus de c line to re m an d to theim m igration c ourt. This is a pa rtic ula rly unusua l c a se in whic h

the distric t c ourt found the
e vide nc e of M ic h a e l’ s pa

te rnity in a bsolutee q

uilibrium
. Tha

t finding ne c e ssa

rily
m e ans tha t M ic ha e l re butte d the fore ign birth pre sum ption with substa

ntia l c re dible
e vide nc e . In the re m ova l proc e e ding, thegove rnm e nt bore the burde n to prove tha t M ic ha e l is re m ova

ble a s a non-c itiz e n by

c le ar, une quivoc a l, a

nd c onvinc ing
e vide nc e . B e c a

u se the gove rnm e nt’ s e vide nc e m isse d this m ark, we GR ANT M ic ha e l’ s pe tition for re vie w a nd VAC ATE the re m ova l orde r. PE T IT IO N G RANT E D.

6