### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-20324 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JOSE CORDERO, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:09-CV-1232

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * This case involves th e question of whether the district court erred in granting the Government’s summary ju d gment motion resulting in the denaturalization of Defendant-Appellant Jose Cordero (“Cordero”) because his citizenship was illegally procured. The o p e r a t ive facts are undisputed. In 1983, Cordero divorced his first wife, Hazel Chavez-Guell (“Chavez -Guell”), and entered into a sham marriage U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Janu ary9, 201 2 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Pursua nt to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion s houldnot * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-20324 Document: 00511718241 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/09/2012No. 11-20324

with Elsa Reyna Calderon (“Calderon”), a United Sta t e s c i t i z en, in order to acquire legal permanent resident (“LPR”) status in the United States. Cordero continued to live with Chavez-Guel l in Houston during the entirety of his “marriage” to Calderon, who resided in Corpus Christi. Af t e r successfully acquiring LPR status, Cordero divorced Calderon and remarried Chavez-Guell. In 1988, Cord ero was served with notice of the Government’s intent to rescind his LPR stat u s o n the basis of marriage fraud. In 1989, after a rescission hearing at which Cordero testified on his own behalf, th e Immigration Judge (“IJ”) issued an order resc i n ding Cordero’s LPR status on the ground that Cordero’s “marriage” to Calderon was “a marriage of c o nv enience for immigr a t i o n purposes.” Cordero appealed the IJ’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “BIA”). The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision a n d dismissed Cordero’s appeal on June 17, 1993. Cordero never appealed the BIA’s decision and has not sought to reopen it. Despite the fact that the IJ had rescinded his LPR status and his appeal had not yet been resolved, Cordero submitted an application for naturalization

o n J u n e 1 6 , 1993, one day before the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal. In h i s application, Cordero swore that he had never given false testimony for the

purpose of obtaining any immigration benefit. He later failed to disclose to the interviewing immigration official that his LPR status had been rescinded and that his BIA appeal was pending. In February 1994, Cordero was naturalized and received his certificate of naturalization. The district court granted summary judg m e n t against Cordero on the ground that his naturalization had been illegally procured because he failed to satisfy a statutory requirement, specific a l ly , that an individual be lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent r e sidence. United States v. Cordero , No. H-09-1232, 2011 WL 1542669, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 21, 2011). Cordero raises only one argument on appeal. He contends that because he did

2 Case: 11-20324 Document: 00511718241 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/09/2012No. 11-20324

not receive notic e o f the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal until after he became naturalized, his LPR status rescission was not “final.” Thus, in Cordero’s view, he met the LPR requirement for naturalization when he app l i ed and was granted citizenship. Cordero candidly admits that he has no authority whatsoever for his argument that a BIA decis i o n i s not “final” until it is received by the parties. 1 Thus, he abandons his sole issue by fa iling to brief it adequately. “Questions posed for appellate review but inadequately briefed are considered abandoned.” Dardar v. Lafourche Realty Co., Inc. , 985 F.2d 824, 831 (5th Cir. 199 3). Even were we to c o n sider the argument, we conclude that it fails on the merits. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a), an order admitting a person to United States citizenship may be revoked and the certificate of naturalization cancelled if, inter alia , the order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured. Because “there must be strict compliance with all the congressionally imposed prerequisites to the acquisition of citizenship,” the order a n d c e r tificate of naturalization are deemed “illegally procured” if the applicant fails to comply with any of the prerequisites. Fedore n k o v. United States , 449 U.S. 490, 506 (1981) (citations omitted). In other words, if an applicant procures citizenship “wh e n p r escribed qualifications have no existence in fact, it is illegally procured[.]” United States v. Ginsberg , 243 U.S. 472, 475 (1917) (“No alien has the slightest right to natu r al i z a tion unless all statutory requirements are complied with[

. ] ” ) ; s e e also United States v. Beda , 118 F.2d 458, 459 (2d Cir. 1941) (“Proof of fraud in obtaining a ce r t i f i c a te is unnecessary to justify

Cord ero doe s not se ek to reo pen the BIA pr oce edi ng for lack of noti ce (ind eed , he doe s 1 not cont es t that his mar riage wa s a sha m and, ther e f o r e , t h e IJ rule d cor rec tly) , so cas es add res sin g that sit uatio n are inap pos ite

. Indeed , in his brie f, Cord ero doe s not even att em pt to argue that he wo uld have done anythin g dif fer entl y had he rec eived not i c e o f t h e B IA’s dis mi ss al of his app eal. Mo reover, even aft er lear ning of the BIA’s dis mi ss al of his app eal, Cord erodid not se ekjud icia l o r othe r revie w. 3 Case: 11-20324 Document: 00511718241 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/09/2012No. 11-20324

cancellation, illegality alone w i ll s ubject a certificate to successful attack.”) (citations omitted). Since nothing i n the statutes or regulations suggests that Cordero’s argument about “finality” has weight, we conclude that he “illegally pr ocured” citizenship as he was not an LPR on the date of his naturalization. Accordingly, 2 having found no error warranting reversal in the district court’s determination that Cordero’s naturalization was illegally procured, we AFFIRM.

“[T]he right to acqui re Ame ric an cit izens hip is a pr ecio us one, ” and “onc e citizens hip 2 has been acqui red , its los s can have se vere and unse ttl ing cons equenc es .” Fedorenko , 449 U. S. at 505- 06 (c itat ions om itt ed)

. We caution, then , that our dec isi on res ts on the cir cum st ance s h e r e pr es ente d. We need not add res s the sit uatio n wh ere an individual cont es ts the unde rlying fac ts , clai ms not to have rec eived noti ce of the BIA’ s d i sm iss al of his cas e, and

se ek s to re- ope n BIA pr oce edi ngs. 4 Case: 11-20324 Document: 00511718241 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/09/2012