2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

9-20-2005 

# J o seph v . Atty Ge n U SA

P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-2885

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin
. C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" J os ep h v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 467. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/467AM EN DE D P RE CE DE NT I AL
UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o: 04- 2885

____________ M AR C H I L AI RE J OS E P H,
Pet i t i oner

v. A L B E R T O G O N Z A L E S ,* A tto rn e yG e n e ra l o f th e U n ite d S ta te s o f

A m e ri c a , R es pondent

* S u b sti tuted p u rsua n t t o F ed era l R u le of A p p ell ate P roc ed u re 43( c) ( 2)

___________________________________

O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew f ro m th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( N o. A 40- 135- 340)

A r gued J ul y14, 20052 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , M cK E E , and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed Sept ember20, 2005)

J enni ferH

. K i m , E s q. ( A r gued) A sso ciati o n o f th e B ar o f th e C ityo f N ew Y o rk R efuge e A s s i s t ance Pr ogr am 42 W

. 44 St r eet

th N ew Y or k, N Y 10036 A t t or ney f

orP et i t i oner

Pet erD

. K ei s l er , E s q. A s s i s t antA t t or neyG ener al
L i nda S. W ernery , E s q. Seni orL i t i gat i on C ouns el
W i l l i am C

. M i ni ck, E s q. ( A r gued) U

. S. D epart m entof J us t i ce O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on P. O

. B ox 878 B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D C 20044 A t t or neys f

orR es pondentR os emane di ed b efor e the comm ence m entof the 1 i m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs ati s s ue her e. 

### 3 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

M cK E E , C i r cui tJ udge:
M ar c H i l ai r e J os eph pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof t h e B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s di s m i s s i ng hi s appea l fr om t he I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s det erm i nat i on t hat he i s depor t abl e as char ged, and deny i ng hi s cl ai m of der i vat i ve ci t i zens hi p. J os eph con t end s that he i s not s ubj ectt o d epo rt at i on becau se he i s a U n ited S tate s n a tio n a l. A lt e r n a tely , h e a sk s u s to tra n sf e r th is m at t ert o t he D i s t r i ctC o u rt fora de novo d e ter m in a tio n o f h is c l a i m o f

Un i t e d S t a t e s c i t i z e n s h i p p u r s u a n tt o I NA § 242( b) ( 5) ( B ) , 8 U

. S. C

. § 1252( b) ( 5) ( B )

. Forthe re as ons that fol l ow w e w i l l gr antJ os eph’ s pet i t i on forr evi ew , v aca t e the or derof the B I A , and tr ans fert he cas e t o the appr opr i at e D i s t r i ct C our tforadj udi cat i on. I . F ACT UAL AND P ROCE DURAL BA CKGROUND.
J os eph w as bor n i n H ai t i on J ul y5, 1973. H e al l eges t hat hi s m ot herw as R o sem ane J os eph. A ccor di ng t o J os eph, 1 R o se m a n e b e c a m e p re g n a n t w ith h im w h e n sh e w a s 1 2 y e a rs o ld as a r e s u l t o f b e i n g r a p e d b y a n u n k n o wn a s s a i l a n t
. J os eph al l eges t hat , due t o t he ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng hi s bi r t h, heO n M ar ch 1, 2003, t he IN S ceas ed t o exi s tas an i ndepende nt 2 ag en cyw ith in the D ep artm en t of Ju sti ce an d it s fu n cti o n s w ere t r ans ferr ed t o t he new l yform ed D epar t m entof H om el and S e c u ri ty. See Home l a n d Se c u r i t yAct , 1 16 St at
. 2 1 3 5 , Pu b

. L. 107- 296 ( 2002)

. T he form erI N S w as di vi ded i nt o t hr ee s e p a r a t e a g e n c i e s : Un i t e d S t a t e s I mmi g r a t i on a n d Cu s t o ms E nfor cement ; B u rea u o f C u stom s an d B o rde r P rotec ti o n ; and the U nit ed S t at es C i t i zenship and Im m i grat i on S ervi ces. 

### 4 w as ra ised in H ait i byh is gran d p are n ts – R o sem an e’s f athe r, H er m a n n J o s e p h ( “ Herma n n ” ) a n d h e rmoth e r , Lo l i t a Cl e r gé J o s e p h ( “ L o l i t a ” )

. He r ma n n a n d L o l i t a a r e n o w d e c e a s e d

. He a lso c laim s th a t h e g re w u p b e liev in g th a t H e rm a n n a n d L o lit a w er e hi s fatherand mot her , and thatR os emane w as hi s ol der s i s t er . H e mai nt ai ns th at h e di d notl earn thatR os emane w as actual l yhi s m ot herunt i l he w as 13 y ear s ol d.
I ti s undi s put ed thatR os emane came t o t he U ni t ed St at es in 1 9 8 1 a n d se ttl e d in N e w Je rse y . S h e m a rrie d A n g e lo M or al es, a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen, i n 1983. M or al es fi l ed a s pous e pet i t i on forR os emane, and she w as adm i t t ed t o t he Un i t e d S t a t e s a s a n i mm i g r a n to n M a r c h 2 3 , 1 9 8 5

. On Sept ember 5, 1985, M or al es fi l ed a pet i t i on i dent i fy i ng J os eph as R os emane’ s s on, and hi s s t eps on. T h e Im m i gr at i on and N atu r a l i z a t i o n Se r v i c e ( “ I NS” ) a p p r o v e d t h e p e t i t i o n on 2 O ct ober 7, 1985, and on February 15, 1986, J osep h w as admi t t ed t o t he U ni t ed St at es ; he w as then 13 y ear s ol d. J os eph m ai nt ai ns t hathe l earned t he t ruth abouthi s m others om e poi ntR o sem an e’s bro ther, G arry Jo sep h , test ifi ed at J o sep h ’s 3 im m ig ra tio n h e a rin g th a t Jo se p h lea rn e d th a t R o se m a n e w a s h is m o th e r w h ile h e w a s s till l iv in g in H a iti. 

### 5 aft erhi s arr i val i n t he U ni t ed St at es . R os emane w as natur al i zed 3 as a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen w hen J os eph w as 16 y ear s ol d. J os eph n o w m a in tain s tha t, a s R o se m a n e ’s so n , h e d e riv e d c iti z e n sh ip thro u g h h er. J os eph’ s con t actw i t h t he I N S began af t erhi s 1995 and 19 96 con vict i on s i n N ew Jer se y for st at e cri m i nal offenses, i ncl udi ng cr i m es cons i der ed “a ggr avat ed fe l oni es ” underthe I N A

. O n J anuary2, 1997, the I N S se rved J os eph w i t h an O r der t o S h o w Ca u s e c h a r g i n g h i m wi t h b e i n g d e p o r t a b l e u n d e rI NA § 2 4 1 (a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) forhi s aggr avat ed fe l onyconvi ct i ons , and u n d e rI NA § 2 4 1 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B) ( I ) fo rh i s c o n v i c t i o n f o ra c r i me i nvol vi ng a co n tr o ll ed s ubs t ance . A thi s i ni t i al depor t at i on hear i ng on M ar ch 6, 1997, J os eph as s ert ed thathe had de r i ved U

. S. ci t i zens hi p t hrou g h hi s m otherand w as ther efor e not s ubj ectt o depor t at i o n underthe A ct
. H i s cl ai m w as r ej ect ed, a n d h e w a s o rd e re d d e p o rte d to H a iti

. O n J anuary31, 2001, J o sep h fi l ed a pro se m o tio n to r eopen, r ecount i ng hi s out
- of- w edl ock bi r t h i n H ai t i and a s s e r t i n g t h a th e o b t a i n e d d e r i v a t i v e c i t i z e n s h i p , u n d e rI NA § 321( a)( 3 ), u pon hi s m other ’ s natur al i zat i on pr i ort o hi s 18 th bi r t hday

. O n N ovember 21, 2001, t he IJ deni ed J os eph’ s m ot i on t o r eopen, concl udi ng t hatH ai t i an l aw pr ecl uded Jos eph fr om b en ef itti n g fro m the o u t- o f-w ed lock p rov isi o n o f § 3 2 1 (a)(3). T he B IA dis m i ssed Joseph’s appeal of t hat deci si on becau se

### 6 H ai t i had el i m i nat ed al l di s t i nct i ons betw ee n le gi t i m at e and il legiti m ate c h il d ren . In the B IA ’s view , itw as th ere fo re i r r el ev ant undert he A ctw hetherhi s natur al father a c k n o w led g e d h im sin c e Jo se p h h a d b e e n leg iti m a ted a t b ir th and coul d t her efor e notderi ve U

. S. ci t i zens hi p pur s uantt o § 3 2 1 (a)(3). T h e re a f te r, pr o bono cou n sel fi l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew on J os eph’ s behal f. T he pet i t i on al l eged t hat t he C i vi l C ode of H ai t i onl yl egi t i m i zed c hi l dr en born outof w ed lock w ho had b ee n ac k n o w ledg ed b ytheir na tural fa ther. S ince Jo sep h ’s m ot herhad bee n r aped and hi s natur al fatherw as unknow n, Jo se p h c o n ten d e d th a t h e w a s n e v e r a c k n o w led g e d b yh is natur al fatherand coul d t her efor e notbe cons i der ed l egi t i m at ed u n d e r H a itia n la w . T h e g o v e rn m e n t a g re e d

. O n D ece m ber12, 2002, t he U

. S. D epart m entof J us t i ce, O f f ice o f Im m ig ra tio n L iti g a tio n , f iled a m o tio n f

o r re m a n d w ith this co u rt. A fter ad d it ion al fil ing s w ith this co u rtan d the B IA t h a tw e n e e d n o td e t a i l f o rp u rp o s e s o f

o u rd e c i s i o n , n e w l yreo p en ed p roc ee d ing s b eg an in f ron t of the IJ. O n e m o n th later, t he g ov ernm ent i ssued a n ew charge o f dep ort abil i t yagainst J o s e p h , c h a r g i n g h i m w i th d e p o r t a b i l i t y u n d e r I NA § 241( a) ( 1) ( A )

. T he governm entnow as s ert ed thatJ os eph w as excl udabl e atthe t i m e of e ntr ybeca us e R os emane w as not actu a l l y h i s moth e r . Ra t h e r , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e g o v e r n me n t , s he w as re all yh is el d er sist er, an d Jo sep h w as th ere fo re M o rales’s br ot her

- i n- l aw r atherthan hi s s t epson . T hus , the governm ent cl ai m ed thatJ os eph’ s im m i gr antvi s a w as i nval i d and in tr od uced a ser i es of docu m ents and report s from H ai t i to s u p p o r tt h i s c l a i m.A l t hough w e ar e re vi ew i ng t he dec i s i on of the B I A , notthat 4 o f t h e I J , t h e BI A’ s ru l i n g c a n n o tb e u n d e r s t oo d i n a v a c u u m, g iv e n its a n a ly sis . T h u s, w e m u st re f e r to th e I J’s a n a ly sis in or dert o pr ov ide t he pr opercont extand bac kgr ound forour a n a lysis o f

th e B IA ’s ru lin g . 

### 7 O n D e c e m b e r 29 , 2 0 0 3 , in a w ri tt en d ec isi o n , the IJ a g re e d w ith th e IN S ’s p o sitio n a n d o rd e re d Jo se p h d e p o rte d to H ai t i b ased up on t he judge ’s fi nd i ng that J oseph w as a depor t abl e al i en, and nota U

. S. ci t i zen. T he B I A aff i r m ed, and t hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew fol l ow ed.

I I . DI S CUS S I ON.
A . The I J’ s D e c i s i on. 4
T he I J r evi ew ed the governm ent ’ s evi dence i ncl udi ng r ep o rt s of an i nves t i gat i on i nt o the ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng J os eph’ s bi r t h i n H ai t i

. T he IJ t hen re count ed t he t es t i m onyof eac h of the w i t nes s es at t he r emoval hear i ng i ncl udi ng J os eph, R os emane’ s br ot herG arr yJ os eph ( “G arr y ”) and M or al es . T he I J ruled t hatJ os eph fa i l ed t o pr ove der i vat i ve cit izen sh ip b ya p rep o n d era n c e o f th e e v iden ce . F ir st, the IJ n o ted th a t Jo se p h d id n o t su b m it a n y p o lice o r m e d ica l re p o rts t o confi r m t hatR os emane had been r aped , norhad he s ubm i t t ed anyevi dence t o es t abl ish thatR os emane had fa i l ed t o at t end s chool ort hats he had r ece i ved medi cal car e dur i ng her pr egnanc y . T he I J al s o comm ent ed on th e factthat , al t hough G arryh ad test ifi ed that R o sem an e’s rap e a n d p reg n an cyw ereUn d e rHa i t i a n l a w: 5
decl ar at i ons of bi r th m u st be m ade t o an off i ci al o f th e c iv il statu s o f

th e lo c a lityw h e r e th e b irth occurr ed w it h in one mont h of del i very , and the b i r t h c e r t i f

i c a t e m u s tb e d r a w n u p i m m e d i a t e l y. If the b irth has n o t b ee n d ec lared w ith in tw o y ea rs a f ter th is leg a l d e a d lin e h a s ru n o u t, th e b irth cert i fi cat e ca nnotbe dr aw n up byan off ici al of the c ivil sta tu s, ex ce p t pu rsua n t t o a d ec laratory ju d g m e n t p ro n o u n c e d b yth e c iv il co u rt ( Tri bunal C iv il) o f th e c h ild ’s b irth p lac e o r, if th is p lac e is unknow n, of the chi l d’ s dom i ci l e.



### 8 comm on know l edge i n t he nei ghborhood, no aff i davi t s had bee n subm i t t ed from anyneighbo rs . T he I J gave l i t t l e w ei ght t o R os emane’ s s pous e pet i t i on, co n clud ing that, w h il e the p eti ti o n li sted Jo sep h as R o sem an e’s c h ild , this p e tit io n a n d th e o th e r U .S . im m ig ra tio n d o c u m e n ts that n am ed Jo sep h as R o sem an e’s c h ild w ere n o t pri m ary ev iden ce o f a m o ther-ch il d relati o n s h ip

. M o reo v er, th e IJ concl uded that , b ec au se the document s w er e pr epar ed by J os eph’ s fami l y , t hey w er e s el f- s ervi ng. T he I J al s o ques t i oned th e v a lid ityo f

th e S e p tem b e r 1 9 8 5 b irth c e rtific a te J os eph s ubm i t t ed bec aus e the ce r t i fi cat e named R os emane as t he m o th e r an d H e rm a n n a s the f a th e r, a n d Jo se p h f

a iled to su b m it t he ci vi l j udgm entr equi r ed fora del ay ed bi r t h cert i fi cat e t o be iss u e d in H a iti

. 5Jo seph tes t i fi ed thathe d i scovered thatR osem ane w as h is 6 m ot heraft erhi s arr i val i n t he U ni t ed S t at es . G arr yt es t i fi ed that Jo se p h w a s s til l li v in g in H a iti w h e n h e lea rn e d o f h is r el at i ons hi p w i t h R os emane. A ccor di ng t o G arr y ’ s t es t i m ony , a bi r t h of r ecogni t i on 7 a c k n o w le d g e s a n a d o p ted o r re c o g n ize d c h ild w h ile a b irth cert i fi cat e i ndi cat es t he exi s t ence of a natur al fatherof the chi l d. 

### 9 I n t he I J ’ s vi ew , M or al es ’ t es t i m ony w as notper s uas i ve s i nce Rosemane had not i nform ed hi m of her “baby ” i n H ai t i for s ever a l y e a r s , a n d M o r a l e s o n l yk n e w of t h e c i r c u ms t a n c e s of J os eph’ s bi r t h t hr ough hi s co n ver s at i ons w i t h R os emane. M o re o v e r, w h ile th e IJ th o u g h t G a rry ’s te stim o n y w a s g e n e ra lly cons i s tent w it h J os eph’ s , the I J not ed thatthe t es t i m onyof the t w o w as i n confl i ctas t o w h en Jos eph l earned thatR os emane w as hi s m ot herand thats he had c oncei v ed hi m as a r es ul tof b e in g ra p e d

. A d d iti o n a lly , the IJ n o ted th a t G a rry w a s u n a b le

6 t o gi v e d e t a i l s a b o u tJ o s e p h ’ s b i r t h , i n c l u d i n g whe t h e rJ o s eph w as bor n at hom e or i n t he hos pi t al

. T he IJ also f ound inco n sist en cies b etw ee n G arry ’s af fid av itan d h is testi m o n y . In hi s aff i davi t , G arr y expl ai ned t hat H erm ann’ s name appear ed as t he n atural fat her on Jo seph’s bi rth cert i fi cat e “as a c o n v e n ien c e ” a n d “ to e x p e d ite th e re q u e st f o r a b irth cert i fi cat e. ” H ow ever , dur i ng h is test i m ony , G arr ys ai d t hat H erm ann put h is n ame dow n as J os eph’ s fatheroutof embarrassm ent beca us e J os eph w as “a c hi l d of vi ol at i on or r ape. ” G arr yl at er e xpl ai ned that , due t o hi s father ’ s l ack of educa t i on, he err ed and s houl d have a t t empt ed t o geta bi r t h of r ecogni t i on i ns t ead of a b i r t h cert i fi cat e. T he I J thought 7T h is s e c tio n sta tes , in r e lev a n t p a rt: 8
U se o f p rio r s ta tem e n ts
. T he i m m i gr at i on j udge



### 10 G arr y ’ s t es t i m onyw as vague a nd s eemed r ehea r s ed.
C onver s el y , t he I J found the governm ent ’ s evi dence per s uas i v e . He was p a r t i c u l a r l y i mpr es s ed w i t h t he g o v ern m en t’ s o v erse as i n v esti g ati o n rep o rt
. T h a t rep o rt c o n tain e d : (1 ) a p a tien ts’ re c o rd b o o k f ro m th e H a iti U n iv e rsity G ener al H os pi t al of St at e dat ed J ul y , 1973 , s t at i ng thata pat i ent named Ja ni t a C l er gé gave bi r t h t o herfi fth chi l d on J ul y5, 1973; ( 2) com m ents from t he i nv est i gator , M rs . L ucienne D . B ru tus, expl ai ni ng t hat t he Fi nanci al and A dm i ni s t r at i ve D i r ect orof the M at erni t yH os pi t al of the U ni ver s i t yof H ai t i concl uded thatthe b i r t h c e r t i fi c a t e s u b mi t t e d b yJ o s e p h , wh i c h p u rp o r t e d l yc a me fr om t he H os p it al, di d noti n fac tcome fr om the H os pi t al ; and (3) a d d it ion al rep o rt s fro m M rs. B rutu s ex p lai n ing that D r. E douar d V i al a, a pr om i nentob- gyn phy s ici an i n H ai t i , deni ed sig n in g Jos e p h ’s s u b m itt e d b irth c e rtific a te a n d o f f e re d a sa m p le of hi s ow n s i gnatur e forcompar i s on. Jo se p h tried to h a v e a t lea st s o m e o f th e d o c u m e n ts in t hes e r epor t s excl uded as “uns w orn, uncorr obor at ed, and u n re liab le” h e a rsa y , arg u in g th a t an yre lian c e o n th e m w o u ld denyhi m d u e p roce s s and a f ai rhear i ng beca us e he ha d no o p p o rtu n ityto c ro ss -e x a m in e th e w itn e ss e s. H e b a se d h is ar gum enton Eze a g w u n a v . A sh c ro ft , 3 2 5 F

. 3 d 3 9 6 (3d C ir

. 2003)

. H ow ever , t he I J admi t t ed the r epor t s i nt o evi dence ci t i ng 8 C

. F. R

. § 1240. 46. T he I J rul ed thatt he str i ctrul es of 8m ayr ece i ve i n evi dence anyo r al orw r i t t en s t at ementt hati s m at er i al and r el evantt o anyi s s ue i n t he ca s e pr evi ous l y m ade by t he r es pondentor anyot her per s on dur i ng anyi nves t i gat i on, e x a m in a tio n , h e a rin g , o r tria l.



### 11 evi dence ar e notappl i cabl e i n depor t at i on pr ocee di ngs , and that J os eph’ s due pr oces s ri g h ts w er e noti nfr i nged bec aus e the r epor t s offe r ed by t he gover nm ent w er e re l evantand pr obat i ve a s r e q u i r e d b y Ez e a guw ana . T h e IJ e x p lain e d th a t th e re p o rts w er e expe di t i ous l ys erved on Jos eph; M r s . B rutus ’ s exper i ence a n d c re d e n tials h a d b e e n d o c u m e n ted ; M rs. B ru tu s p e rso n a lly d ire c ted th e in v e stig a tio n a n d p ro v id e d a d e taile d a c c o u n t o f it i nc l u d i n g a s a mpl e o f a u t h e n t i c Hai t i a n b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e s ; and Joseph had adeq uate t i m e t o m ake his ow n fo l l ow -up i nq uir i es, s u b m it w ri tte n in te rr o g a to ri e s a n d o f f e r r e b u tta l e v id e n c e . T he I J concl uded: U pon a ca r eful r evi ew of the ent i r e r ecor d, and aft erful l yeval uat i ng and w ei ghi ng t he evi dence and argum ents present ed, the C ou rtdeterm i nes, on bal ance , t hatJ os eph’ s evi dence i s i ns uffi ci ent to m e e t h is b u rd e n o f p ro o f

. Jo se p h h a s f a iled to e sta b lish th a t h e d e riv e d U n ited S tate s c iti z e n sh ip b ya p re p o n d e ra n c e o f c re d ib le e v i d e n c e . I concl u d e t h a tJ o s e p h i s th e c h i l d o f Hermann J os eph and Zal i t a C l er ge and the s i s t erof R o se m a n e Jo se p h M o r a les . Jo se p h h a s f a iled to s a t i s f yt h e r e q u i r e me n t s s e t f o r t h i n I NA § 321( a) ( 3)

. T her efor e, he has not d erived U ni t ed

### 12 S tate s c iti z e n sh ip

. I fu rth e r fin d th a t d e p o rta b ili ty has been e s t abl i s hed bycl ear , con v i nci ng, and unequi v o cal evi dence undereac h of the four c h a rg e s b ro u g h t b yth e D e p a rtm e n t.

B. The BIA’ s D e c i s i on. In h is ap p ea l t o the B IA , Jo sep h arg u ed th a t ( 1 ) th e IJ i m pr oper l ycons i der ed the r epor t s s ubm i t t ed bythe governm ent and ( 2) t he IJ ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t y fi ndi ngs w er e nots uppor t ed byt he r ecor d. W i t h r es pectt o t he l att er , the B I A found:
t he [IJ] did not m a k e a n exp l i ci tadv ers e cr edi bi l i t y det erm i nat i on. I ns t ead, t he [I J ] found t hatt he t es t i m onypr es ent ed byeac h w i t nes s w as e ith e r in su f

f icie n t to p ro v e th e re sp o n d e n t’s c laim o r u n d e rm in e d b yth e d o c u m e n tar ye v id e n c e in t he reco rd. T hus , as a mat t erof pr oof, not cr edi bi l it y , t he [I J ] found thatthe t es t i m onyof [J o s e p h ] , h i s a l l e g e d u n c l e , a n d h i s a l l eged s t epfa t her , w as i ns uffi ci entt o m eethi s bur den.
T he B I A al s o r ej ect ed Jos eph’ s ar gum ent t hatt he I J err ed in rely ing u p o n th e in v esti g ati v e re p o rtfro m H ait i. T h e B IA expl ai ned: “eve n abs entr el i ance on t he i nform at i on cont ai ned i n t h e h o sp i t al r ecor ds , [J os eph’ s ] cl ai m i s s t i l l underm i ned by ot herevi dence i n t he r ecor d w hi ch s ugges t s t hatR os emane J os eph w as h is s i s t er , nothi s m other

. ” Thi s “otherevi dence ” i ncl uded a port i on of one o f the i nves t i gat or ’ s r epor t s t hat J os eph had notobj ect ed t o. T hatpor t i on of t he r epor tas s ert ed t hatt he bi r t h cert i fi cat e J os eph s ubm i t t ed w as fr audul ent
. T heT he B I A al s o deni ed J os eph’ s m ot i on t o r emand t o appl yfor 9 defe r r al of r emoval undert he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e, fi ndi ng t hatJ os eph coul d notes t abl i s h a p rim a fa c ie c a s e for s uch r eli ef. J os eph had a r gued that , due t o hi s cr i m i nal c on vict i on i n the U nit ed S t at es, he w ou l d b e i nd efin itely det ai ned o n ce removed t o H ai t i , and i ti s m or e l i kel yt han not t hathe w oul d be t or tur ed once det ai ned. J os eph does notappea l t hi s par tof the B I A ’ s deci s i on. O n M ar ch 7, 2005, w e deni ed J os eph’ s m ot i on fora s t ayof 10 r emoval , and on M ay16, 2005 J os eph w as rem oved fr om t he U ni t ed St at es t o H ai t i

. T he part i es di s put e w hether , pr i ort o the enactm ent of t he R E A L ID A ct , w hich w e dis cuss i nfr a , we w o u ld h a v e re tain e d ju risd ic ti o n o v e r Jo se p h d e sp ite h is departur e fr om t he U ni t ed St at es. T hi s di s put e i s no l onger r e l e v a n t , h o we v e r , s i n c e b o t h p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t u n d e r § 2 4 2 , we r e t a i n j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rJ o s e p h ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. 

### 13 B I A not ed thatJ os eph had not offe r ed any evi dence t o r ebutt hat as s er t i on, norhad he s ubm i t t ed an authent i c bi r t h cert i fi cat e or evi dence t hatR os emane J os eph gave bi r t h on J ul y 5, 1973. T he B I A di s cr edi t ed the 1985 bi rth cert i fi cat e J os eph s ubm i t t ed. T he B oar d b eli ev ed thatthe bi r t h cert i fi cat e w as underm i ned by H erm ann and Lol i t a’ s m arr i age cert i fi cat e, w hi ch l i s t ed J os eph and R os emane as br ot her and s i s t er . T he B I A concl uded: “the re c o rd d o e s n o t co n tain a n yre liab le, c o n sis te n t, o r a c c u ra te evi dence t o pr ove that[J os eph] i s the s on of R os emane J os eph t hr ough w hom he clai m s t o have de r i ved U ni t ed St at es ci t i zens hi p. ” T hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew fol l ow ed.

9 1 0

### 14 I I I . J U R I S D I C T I O N & S T A N D A R D O F R E V I E W. A ft erJ os eph fi l ed thi s pet i t i on forr evi ew , C ongr es s enac t ed the R eal I D A ct
. R E A L I D A ct of 2005, Pub. L

. N o. 109- 13, D i v. B , § 1 0 6 , 1 1 9 S tat. 2 3 1

. A lth o u g h th e im p a c t o f th a t A c t h e re is m i ni m al , i tdoes aff

ectourj ur i s di ct i on. Pr i ort o t he ena ctm entof the R E A L I D A ct, our j ur i s di ct i on w as contr ol l ed bythe “tr ans i t i onal rul es ” fo rj u d i ci al r evi ew s et for t h i n § 309 of I I R I R A , and thos e pr ovi s i ons of the fo rm er § 1 0 6 o f th e IN A , 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 1 0 5 a (rep ea led 1 9 9 6 ). H ow ever , pur s uantt o § 106( d) of t he R E A L I D A ct , a pet i t i on forr evi ew fi l ed under form er § 106( a) of the I N A i s tr eat ed as i f i t h ad been f

i l ed as a pet i t i on forr evi ew under§ 242 of the I N A , 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1252. W e musttr eatJ os eph’ s pet i t i on for r e v i e w a c c o r d i n g l y. T h u s , J o s e p h ’ s c i t i z e n s h i p c l a i m i s n o w g o v e r n e d b y 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 25 2(b)( 5). T hat s ect i on provides:

Tr e a t me n to f

n a t i o n a l i t yc l a i ms (A ) C o u rt d e ter m in a tio n if n o iss u e o f

f a c t. I f the pet i t i onercl ai m s t o be a nation al of the U ni t ed St at es and t he cour t of appe al s fi nds fr om t he pl eadi ngs and aff

i davi t s thatno genui ne i s s ue o f m a ter ia l f

a c t ab o u t th e p e tit io n e r’s n a tio n a lity is p re se n ted , the c o u rt sh a ll d e c id e th e n a tio n a lity c l a i m. ( B ) T r ans feri f i s s ue of f act
. I f the

### 15 pet i t i onercl ai m s to be a na t i onal of the U ni t ed S tate s a n d th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls f

in d s th a t a genui ne i s s ue of ma teri al fac taboutt he p eti ti o n er’s n ati o n a li tyis prese n ted, th e c o u rt s h a ll tran sfe r th e p roc ee d ing to the d istri ct co u rt o f th e U n ited S ta te s f

o r th e ju d icia l d istric t in w hi ch the pet i t i oner r es i des for a new hear i ng on th e n a tio n a lityc laim a n d a d e c isio n o n th a t cla im as i f an a ct i on had bee n br oughti n the di s t r i ct cour tunders ect i on 2201 of t i t l e 28, U ni t ed St at es C ode.
I n det erm i ni ng w hethera g enui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t is p re se n ted , o u r i n q u iryis th e sa m e a s th a t w h ich w e e m p lo yin re v ie w in g g ra n ts o f s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t. S e e Ag o s t o v . I NS , 436 U

. S. 748, 754- 5 7 (1978)

. T hus , “a c our tof appe al s cannot r efus e t o al l ow a d e n o v o revi ew of a c i t i zens hi p cl ai m i f the evi dence pr es ent ed i n s uppor tof the cl ai m w oul d be s uffi ci ent to e n tit le a lit ig a n t to trial w e r e su c h e v id e n c e p re se n ted in oppos i t i on t o a m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent
. ” Id . at 7 5 6 ; s ee als o B aeta v. So n c h ik , 273 F. 3d 1261, 1265 ( 9th C i r . 2001) ( s ame)

. A ccor di ngl y , t he governm ent , as t he par t ys eeki ng w hat amount s t o s um m aryj udgm ent , “b ear s t he bur den of es t abl i s hi ng t hat no genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fac texi s t s and that t he undi s put ed fa ct s es t abl i s h [i t s ] r i ght t o j udgm entas a mat t er of l aw . ” R odri

gu ez v. C i t

y of N ew Y ork , 72 F. 3d 1051, 1060- 61 ( 2d C i r . 1995)

. U n d er thi s s t andar d, w e dr aw al l fac tual in f e re n c e s in f

a v o r o f J o s e p h , th e n o n m o v in g p a rt y . See Mat s us hi ta E l ec. I

ndus

. C o. v. Zeni th R adi o C or p. , 47 5 U. S. 5 7 4 , 5 8 7 (19 8 6 ).

### 16 I V . A N A LY SI S. G i ven t he af

ore m e nti on ed scop e of review , w e m ust d e ter m in e if th e re is a g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial f

a c t as to J os eph’ s cl ai m of U ni t ed St at es ci t i zens hi p s o as t o w arr anta de novo d e te rm in a tio n o f

th a t is s u e in th e D is tr ic t C o u rt
. Sect i on 1432( a) of Ti t l e 8 s et s for t h t he r equi r ement s for obt ai ni ng der i vat i ve U ni t ed St at es ci t i zens hi p. T h e r el evant provis i on provides i n p artas fol l ow s:

A chi l d bo rn out s i de of the U ni t ed St at es of al i en par ent s . . . becomes a ci t i zen of the U ni t ed St at es u p on ful fi l l m entof the fol l ow i ng con dit i on s:

. . . . ( 3) T he natur al i zat i on o f the par enthavi ng l egal cus t odyof the chi ld w hen ther e has been a l egal s epar at i on of the par ent s ort he na tur al i zat i on of t he m o ther i f the chi l d w as born outof w edl ock and the pat erni t yof the chi ld has notbeen e sta b lish e d b yleg iti m a tio n ; an d if ( 4) Such natur al i zat i on t akes pl ace w hi l e s uch chi l d i s underthe age of ei ght een y ear s ; and ( 5) Such chi l d i s r es i di ng i n the U n it ed St at es pur s uantt o a l aw ful admi s s i on forperm anent r es i dence atthe t i m e of the natur al i zat i on of the p a re n t las t n a tu ra li z e d u n d e r c lau se (1 ) o f th isSect i on 321( a) w as r epea l ed and s uper cede d i n 2000 bythe 11 C h ild C iti z e n sh ip A c t o f 2 0 0 0 , P u b . L . N o . 1 0 6

- 3 9 5 , 1 1 4 S tat. 1631 ( 2000)

. H ow ever , J os eph cl ai m s t o have de ri ved c i t i z e n s h i p in 1 9 8 9 , b e f

o re § 3 2 1 ( a ) w a s r e p e a l e d

. C o n s e q u e n t l y, th e re p e a l h a s n o b e a ri n g o n o u r d is c u s s io n . 

### 17 subsect i on , or t he parentnatur al i zed u nd er cl ause ( 2) or( 3) of thi s s ubs ect i on, ort her eaf t erbegi ns to re sid e p e rm a n e n tlyin th e U n ited S ta tes w h ile un der the ag e of e i gh t een y ears . 8 U

. S. C

. § 1 4 32( a) , I N A § 321( a) ( r epea l ed and s uper cede d 2 0 0 0 ). 11
A s w e not ed at t he out s et , J os eph mai nt ai ns thathe w as bor n out
- of- w edl ock i n H ai t i and der ived U ni t ed St at es ci t i zens h ip thr ough hi s m other– R os emane – w ho w as natur al iz ed bef

or e hi s ei ght eenth bi r t hday

. J os eph pr es ent ed document a rye v i d e n c e th a ti n cl uded: ( 1) the s pous e pet i t i on fi l ed byM or al es for R os emane l i s t i ng J os eph as R os emane’ s s on; ( 2) Jo se p h ’s b irth c e rtific a te issu e d in 1 9 8 5 listin g R o se m a n e a s h is m ot her ; ( 3) R os emane’ s vi s a appl i ca ti o n fr om 1985 l i s t i ng J os eph as herso n ; (4 ) the al i en r el at i ve vi s a pet i t i on M or al es fi l ed for Joseph l i st i ng Joseph as h i s st ep-son; (5) Joseph’s vi sa appl i cat i on fr om H ai t i , l i s ti n g R os emane as hi s m other ; ( 6) Jo sep h ’s i m m igran t visa an d ali en reg istrati o n ; (7 ) R o sem an e’s pet i t i on fornatu rali za t i on l i s t i ng J os eph as hers on; ( 8) R os emane’ s pet i t i on for al i en re l at i ve for L ol i t a J os eph, w hi ch d o e s n o t li s t J o se p h a s L o lit a Jo se p h ’s c h ild ; an d (9 ) L o lit a J os eph’ s H ai t i an vi s a appl i cat i on, w hi ch does notl i s tJ os eph asI n i t s b r i e f , t h e g o v e r n me n t , l i k e t h e I J a n d th e BI A, 12 focus ed much of i t s at t ent i on on the fa ctt hatJ os eph di d not pr es ent“pr i m ary ” evi dence t o s uppor thi s cl ai m . Such evi dence , a c c o rd in g to th e g o v e rn m e n t, i n c lu d e s p o lice o r m e d ica l re p o rts t hatcoul d co n fi r m t hatR os emane w as r aped i n 1972, s chool r ecor ds dem ons t r at i ng R os emane’ s fai l ur e t o at t end s chool dur i ng oraft erherpr egnanc y , and medi ca l recor ds i ndi cat i ng t h a tRos e ma n e r e c e i v e d me d i c a l c a r e d u r i n g h e rp r e g n a n c y . To hi s cr edi t , coun sel fort he governm ents t at ed ator al ar gum ent th a t h e w o u ld n o t r e ly o n th a t ar g u m e n t as h e d id n o t th in k it par t i cul ar l yp r obat i ve. W e agr ee. R egr ett abl y , emphasi s on s uch 

### 18 h e r c h ild

. Jo sep h ’s t esti m o n ial ev iden ce inclu d ed : ( 1 ) G arry ’s tes tim o n ye x p lain in g th a t h e w a s h o m e th e n ig h t h is f a m ily l earned of R os emane’ s r ape, how he s ubs equent l yo b s erved R os emane’ s devel opi ng pr egnanc y , and how J os eph w as r ai s ed b yH erm an n an d L o li ta as the iro w n so n ; ( 2 ) M o rales’s test im o n ythat h e w as su re tha t Jose p h a n d R o s em an e w ere m ot herand s on; and ( 3) J os eph ’ s t es t i m onyexpl ai ni ng R osem ane’s rape, his un derst and i ng of hi s fam i l ystructure as a chi l d, and how , at t he age of 13, he l earned t hat R os emane w as h is m o th e r. Jo se p h a lso a rg u e s th a t th e f a c t th a t h e su b m itt e d to a bl ood t es tatt he governm ent ’ s r eques ti s evi dence that supp ort s hi s content i on s. T he governm entm ai nt ai ns that J os eph has notr ai s ed a genui ne issu e of mat er i al fac tbeca us e hi s evi dence i s fr om s econda r ys our ces , t he t es t i m oni al evi dence does not 12“pr i m ary ” evi dence i s y etan o ther exam pl e of the cul tur al par ochi al i s m t hats om et i m es cr ee p s i nt o the i m m i gr at i on p ro c e e d in g s w e re v ie w . Ros e ma n e was a l l e g e d l yr a p e d i n 1 9 7 2 , d u r i n g th e b rut al di ct at or s hi p of J ean- C l aude ( “B aby

- D oc”) D uval i er . C om m on s e n s e s u g g e s t s t h a t , d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d i n H a i t i ’ s h i s t o r y, H a iti a n s w o u ld h a v e b e e n m o st re lu c tan t to g e t in v o lv e d w ith p o l i ce a nd r epor tcr i m es , and thi s m ayes peci al l yhave a ppl i ed to ra p e . See Int er- A m eri can C om m i ssi on on H um an R i gh t s, O rg a n iz a tio n o f A m e ri c a n S t a te s , R epor ton the Si t uat i on of H u m a n R ights i n H a iti , at htt p:/ / w w w . ci dh

. oas. org/ cou n try re p /H a iti 8 8 e n g /ch a p .3 .h tm (S e p t. 7, 1 9 8 8 ); h ttp ://w w w .w om enw arpeace. org/ha iti /h a iti .h tm (l a s t v ie w e d A u g . 1 1 , 2 0 0 5 ). M oreove r, H ai t i w as, and con t i nu es t o b e, t he p oo res t c o u n tryin th e W e ste rn H e m isp h e re a n d it i s c e r ta in ly f a ir to as s um e thatonl yan extr emel ys m al l num ber of H ai t i an adol es cent s at t ended s chool w hen R os emane i s al l eged t o have b e e n ra p e d

. U C A tla s o f G lo b a l I n e q u a lity, H ai t i, E ducat i on , at ht tp: //ucat l as . ucs c. edu/ countr y/ 84/ educa t i on ( l as tvi s i t ed A ug. 11, 2005)

. W or s e y et , gi ven the r eal i t ythat t eac her s and a d m in istra to rs m u st h a v e h a d to c o n f ro n t in H a iti a n sc h o o ls in 1 9 7 2 - a re a lityth a t d id n o t in c lu d e c o m p u lso rye d u c a tio n - it is to tallyu n re a listic to th in k th a t th e sc h o o ls th a t d id e x ist w o u ld m ai nt ai n t he ki nd of det ai l ed att endanc e r ecor ds t hat m ight re f le c t th e a b s e n c e o r p re g n a n c yo f a y o u n g s tu d e n t. See Irw in P . S to tz k y , Sym

pos i um on the Rol e of

a Fr ee P r es s and Fr eedom of E xpr es s i on i n the D eve l opm ent and C ons ol i dat i on of D em ocr aci es i n Lat i n A m er i ca , 56 U

. M i ami L

. R ev. 255, 283 

### 19( J an. 2002)

. A l t hough that is notout s i de the r eal m of pos s i bi l i t y , t he governm ent ’ s r el i ance on t he abs ence of s chool r e c o r d s i s n e i t h e r l o g i c a l , a p p r o p r i a t e , n o rr e a l i s t i c a b s e n ts o me pr oof that i t w oul d be appr opr i at e t o expec ts uch evi dence t o be a v a ila b le

. S im il arly , if R o sem an e w as in fa ct pre g n an t i n 1 9 7 2 , there i s no r eas on t o as s um e t hat s he r ece i ved pr enat al car e t hatm i ght gener at e the ki nd of m edi cal r ecor ds thatJ os eph w as expec t ed t o p roduce

. H ai t i , l i ke m a n yotherdev el op i ng cou ntr i es, has a v e ryh ig h in f

a n t m o rta lity ra te, w h ich , co m m o n se n se su g g e sts i s di r ect l yr el at ed t o t he fa ctthats o few w om en r ece i ve pr enat al a n d p o s tn a ta l c a re . See U C A tla s o f G lo b a l I n e q u a lity, Ha iti, He a lth , at ht tp: //ucat l as . ucs c. edu/ countr y/ 84/heal t h ( l as tvi s i t ed A u g . 1 1 , 2 0 0 5 ) ; ht tp: //w w w . nat i onm as t er . com/ countr y/ha/ H eal t h ( l as tv i s i t ed A u g . 1 1 , 2 0 0 5 ).



### 20 su p p o rt h is th e o ry , an d th e b irth c e rtific a te h e p ro d u c e d is unr el i abl e. W e di s agr ee. W e t hink this c as e i s contr ol l ed by t he Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n Ag o s t o v . I NS , 4 3 6 U

. S. 748 ( 1978)

. W e thi nk A gos t o est abli shes that J oseph i s cl e a rly ent i t l ed t o a de novo h e a ri n g in th e D is tr ic t C o u rt
. I n A g o sto , the C o u rt e v a lu a te d a d e riv a tiv e c iti z e n sh ipFor m erI N A 106( a) ( 5) s t at ed: 13

w heneve r any pet i t i oner , w ho s eeks r evi ew of an o rde r un der t hi s s ect i on, cl ai m s t o be a na t i onal of th e U n it ed S t at es and m a k e s a sh o w in g th a t h is c laim is n o t f riv o lo u s, th e c o u rt sh a ll ( A ) pas s upon t he i ssu es p res ent ed w hen i tappea r s fr om t he pl eadi ngs and af

fi davi t s fi l ed by t he par t i es t hatno genui ne i s s ue of ma t e r i a l f

a c t i s p r e s e n t e d ; o r ( B) whe r e a g e n u i n e i s s ue of m at er i a l f

a c ta s t o t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s n a t i o n a l i t yi s p r e s e n t e d, t r ans fert he pr ocee di ngs t o a U ni t ed St at es di s t r i ctcour tfort he di s t r i ct w h ere t he pet i t i onerhas hi s r es i dence forhear i ng de novo of the nat i onal i t ycl ai m and det erm i nat i on as i f s uch pr ocee di ngs w er e ori gi nal l y i ni t i at ed i n t he di s t r i ctcourtunder t he p r o v i s i o n s o f

s e c t i o n 2 2 0 1 o f

t i t l e 2 8

. Anys u c h p e t i t i oner s hal l notbe ent i t l ed t o have suc h i s s ue det erm i ned unders ect i on 1 5 0 3 (a ) o f

th is title o r o th e rw is e . . . .
T h is te stim o n ye x p lain e d th a t A g o sto w a s th e ill e g iti m a te 14 s on of C r oci fes s a Pi anett i ’ s s i s t er– A ngel a Por el l o – w ho l eft herI t al i an hus band and tw o daught er s in 1 9 2 1 t o m ove t o the U n ited S tate s w ith h e r c o u sin . T h r o u g h c o rre sp o n d e n c e w ith 

### 21 c laim u n d e r f

o rm e r IN A § 1 0 6 (a )(5 ). B e f o re th e IJ, A g o sto 13 pr ovi ded t es t i m oni al evi dence fr om hi m s el f and s everal other w itn e s s e s , in c lu d in g h is a d o p tiv e p a re n ts , 

### Cr oc i fe s s aand P ietro P i anett i, 

### and h is half-brother. T h e ytes tifie d in su p p o rt o f h is c laim th a t h e h a d b e e n b o r n to a n u n m a rrie d Ita lian m o th e r in O hi o, an d s entt o I t al yata y oung age t o r es i de w i t h an I t al i an coupl e. Id

. at 75 8

. T h e g o v e rn m e n t p rese n ted d o cu m en tary

14A n g e la, th e P ian e tti s le a rn e d th a t p e tit io n e r h a d b e e n b o rn in O h io , tha t h is f

a th e r w a s S a lv a to re A g o s to , an d th a t A n g e la coul d not ca re forhi m on herow n. A ngel a ther efor e s ent p e titio n e r t o It a ly to b e ra is e d b yth e P ia n e ttis

. Id

. at758. T h e g o v e rn m e n t’s e v id e n c e in c lu d e d a n e n tryf ro m th e C ity 15 o f A g ri g en to reg istryo f b irths f o r 1 9 2 7 relati n g that a 7 5 -y ea rol d handyw om an appe ar ed befor e t he r egi s t r arand dec l ar ed that

“ a t 4 :0 0 a .m . o n th e 1 7 d a y o f [ Ju ly ] i n a h o u se situ a ted in V ia th O b lati, o f a w o m a n w h o d o e s n o t w a n t to b e n a m e d , a m a le chi l d w as bor n, w hi ch she pr es ent s t o m e and t o w hom s he gi ves t he fi r s tname of V i ncenz o and t he s urname of D i Paol a. ” The r egi s t r yal s o i ndi cat ed that this chi l d w as s entt o a foundl i ng hom e. T he governm ent al s o i ntr oduced a r egi s t r yfr om t he foundl i ng hom e, w hi ch i ndi cat ed thata V i ncenz o D i Paol a w as b o r n o n J u l y 1 6 , 1 9 2 7 a n d was c o n s i g n e d t o Cr o c i f es s a and P ie tr o P ia n e tti o n A u g u s t 2 6 , 1 9 2 7

. Id

. at757. T he Pi anetti s test i fi ed thatpet i t i onerw as neveri n t he foundl i ng hom e, butt hat th e document s pr es ent ed byt he governm entconcern ing pe t i t i oner ’ s bi r t h i n I t al yw er e cr eat ed b yA n g e la’ s f

a th e r to h id e th e f

a c t th a t p e tit io n e r w a s h is i l l egi t i m at e gr ands on. Id . a t 7 5 8

. 

### 22 e v id e n c e th a t u n d e rm in e d A g o sto ’s e v id e n c e a n d ten d e d to e s t a b l i s h t h a th e h a d i n s t e a d b e e n b o r n i n I t a l yt o u n k n o wn par ents i n 1927, pl ace d i n a foundl i ng hom e ther e, and ul t i m at el yadopt ed byan I t al i an coupl e. Id . a t 7 5 7

. 15
T h e IJ rejec ted A g o sto’s claim an d the B IA af firm ed

. In deci di ng t he s ubs equent p et i t i on forr evi ew , the C our tof

### 23 A ppeal s fort he N i nt h C i r cui tr efus ed t o t r ans fert he ca s e t o the D i s t r i ctC our t fora de novo h e a rin g o n p e tit io n e r’s c iti z e n sh ip c la im a n d u p h e ld th e d e p o rt a tio n o r d e r. Id

. at 75 2

. T h e c o u rt hel d t hat , beca us e “[ t ] he evi dence pr es ent ed t o t he [I J ] does not d isc lo se a c o lo ra b le c laim to U n ited S tate s n a tio n a lity ,” A g o sto h a d n o t p re se n ted “ su b sta n tial e v id e n c e ” in su p p o rt o f h is c itiz e n s h ip c la im

. Id

. T h e S u p re m e C o u rt re v e rse d , h o ld in g : T he Servi ce’ s pr oof thatpet i t i oneri s not a U ni t ed S tate s c iti z e n w o u ld c e rta in lyb e s u f f icie n t, i f uncontr adi ct ed, t o es t ab l i s h hi s bi r t h i n A gr i gent o, I t al y , i n J ul y1927. H ow ever , t he evi dence adduce d bypet i t i onert o s uppor thi s cl ai m of A m er i can c i t i zens hi p cr eat es genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fa ct t hatcan onl ybe r es ol ved i n a de novo h e a rin g in th e D istric t C o u rt. Id . a t 7 5 7

. T he C our tacknow l edge dth a tAgo s t o h a dt o l d confl i ct i ng sto rie s a b o u t h is u p b rin g in g d u rin g th e c o u rse o f h is i m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs ; how ever , t he C our tfound that , gi ven t he obvi ou s confus i on and unce r t ai ntys urr oundi ng the ci rcu m s t ance s of A gos t o’ s bi r t h underei t herA gos t o’ s ort he governm ent ’ s t heory , “i ti s har dl ysu rpr i s i ng t hatpet i t i oner c a n n o t sa yw ith a n yd e g re e o f c e rta in tyw h o h is tru e p a re n ts mi g h t h a v e bee n. ” Id

. at759- 60. T he C our tfound thatthe event s , as r ecount ed by A gos t o and the w i t nes s es w ho t es t i fi ed on his beh al f, “w hil e ou tof the ord in ary , are notsoO f cour s e, t he D i s t r i ctC our t , as t he tr i ero f fa ct, m i ght 16 r ej ectt he t es t i m onyof J os eph and hi s s uppor t i ng w i tness es beca us e of thei ri nt er es ti n the out come. H ow ever , “that det erm i nat i on has been c om m i t t ed b y C ongr es s t o t he di s t r i ct cour t s by [§ 242] of the A ct , ” and i s notforthi s courtt o deci de. S e e id

. at761. 

### 24 e x tr a o rd i n a r y a s to c o m p e l d is b e lie f in th e iro c c u rr e n c e ,” t her efor e the re cor d es t abl i s hed a ge nui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t re g a rd in g A g o sto ’s c iti z e n sh ip , w h ich th e D istric t C o u rt h a d to re s o lv e . Id

. at760- 61. T he C our texpl ai ned:
A lth o u g h as th e tri er o f f a c t th e D istri ct C o u rt m i ghtr ej ectt he tes t i m onyof thes e w i t nes s es beca us e of thei ri n tere s ti n t he out come, that d e ter m in a tio n h a s b e e n c o m m itt e d b yC o n g re ss to t he di s t r i ctcour t s by§ 106( a) ( 5) ( B ) of the A ct and no tt o the cou rt s of ap peals

. Id . a t 7 6 1

. T hat is p rec isel y t he s i tuat i on her e. M or eover , J os eph an d h is w itn e s s e s h av e told o n e c o n sist en t version o f h is st o ry t hr oughoutt he len g t hypr ocedur al hi s t oryof thi s cas e, and the d o c u m e n tar ye v id e n c e in tro d u c e d b y Jo se p h su p p o rts h is a c c o u n t. A lth o u g h th e g o v e rn m e n t’s a c c o u n t co n tra d icts Joseph’s evi den ce, t he ev i den ce Joseph subm i t t ed is “no tso e x tr a o rd in a ry a s to c o m p e l d is b e lie f in th e iro c c u rr e n c e .” 16 I ndeed, i ti s cert ai nl ypos s i bl e thatthe document aryevi dence s ubm i t t ed byt he governm ent w oul d be re fut ed by t he t es t i m onyI ndeed, “w her e the evi dence cons i s t s o f the t es t i m onyof 17 l i ve w i t nes s es conce r ni ng m at er i al fac tual i s s ues , i tw i l l s el dom if e v e r b e a p p ro p ria te to d e n ya d e n o v o h e a r in g , sin c e ‘[ i]t is on l y w he n t he w i t ne s s e s a r e pr e s e nt a nd s ub j e c t t o cr ossexami nat i on t hatt hei rcr ed ibil ityand the w ei ghtt o be gi ven t heir t est i m on y can be app rai sed. ’" Id

. at757( quot i ng P ol l erv. C ol um bi a B r oadcas t i ng Sys

. , I nc. , 3 6 8 U .S . 4 6 4 , 4 7 3 (1 9 6 2 ))

. A s noted abo ve, Joseph a lso a rgu es that hi s due p rocess 18 rig h ts w e re v io late d w h e n th e g o v e rn m e n t w a s p e rm it te d to intr o d u ce ce rt ain d o cu m en ts from the H ait ian inv esti g ator’s re p o rt. W e n e e d n o t d e c id e th a t is s u e h e r e a s J o se p h w ill r ece i ve a de novo h ea ri n g o n h is c lai m in the D istri ct C o u rt
. If th e g o v e rn m e n t ch o o se s to in tro d u c e th e se d o c u m e n ts a g a in dur i n g t h o s e p r o c e e d i n g s , a n d i f J o s e p h o b

j e c t s , th e Di s t r i ct C o u rt c a n re so lv e th a t issu e in th e p ro p e r c o n tex t. 

### 25 of J os eph’ s w i t nes s es i f t hat t es t i m onyw er e ac cept ed byt he tr i er of f act
. W e t herefore cann ot r ej ec t J o se ph ’s evidence as a m at t erof l aw . A ccor di ngl y , w e co n clude t hatt he evi dence adduce d byJ os eph i n s upp o rtof hi s cl ai m of A m er i can c iti z e n sh ip c re a tes g e n u in e iss u e s o f m a ter ial f a c t th a t c a n o n ly be r es ol ved i n a de novo h e a rin g in th e D istric t C o u rt. 17 A ny t hing l ess r i sks dep riv in g Joseph o f “on e of the m ost pr eci ous [r i ght s ] i m agi nabl e” – hi s ri ghtt o U ni t ed St at es c itiz e n s h ip

. S e e Al ex a n d e rv . I NS , 7 4 F

. 3 d 3 6 7 , 3 7 0 (1 s t C ir

. 1 9 9 6 ). “ T o d e p o rt o n e w h o . . . c laim s to b e a c iti z e n , o b v io u sly d e p riv e s h im o f lib e rty , . . . [ a n d ] m a y re su lt also in lo ss o f b o th pr operty an d li fe; orof al l thatm akes l i fe w or t h l i vi ng. ” Ng Fu n gH o v . W h ite , 2 5 9 U

. S

. 2 7 6 (19 2 2 ). 18

### 26 V. CO NC L US I ON

. For the rea s ons s etfor t h above, w e bel i eve a genui ne iss u e o f m a ter ial f

a c t e x ists a s to Jo se p h ’s d e riv a tiv e c iti z e n sh ip c laim , an d w e w ill th e re f o re g ra n t h is p e tit io n f

o r re v iew , v a c a te t he or derof the B I A and r emand the ca s e t o the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D ist r i ctof N ew J er s eyforfur t her p ro c e e d in g s .