IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

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 the question of whether the district court erred in

granting the Government’s summary judgment motion resulting in the

denaturalization of Defendant-Appellant Jose Cordero (“Cordero”) because his

citizenship was illegally procured.

The operative facts are undisputed. In 1983, Cordero divorced his first

wife, Hazel Chavez-Guell (“Chavez-Guell”), and entered into a sham marriage

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 9, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

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

with Elsa Reyna Calderon (“Calderon”), a United States citizen, in order to

acquire legal permanent resident (“LPR”) status in the United States. Cordero

continued to live with Chavez-Guell in Houston during the entirety of his

“marriage” to Calderon, who resided in Corpus Christi. After successfully

acquiring LPR status, Cordero divorced Calderon and remarried Chavez-Guell. 

In 1988, Cordero was served with notice of the Government’s intent to rescind

his LPR status on the basis of marriage fraud. In 1989, after a rescission

hearing at which Cordero testified on his own behalf, the Immigration Judge

(“IJ”) issued an order rescinding Cordero’s LPR status on the ground that

Cordero’s “marriage” to Calderon was “a marriage of convenience for

immigration purposes.” Cordero appealed the IJ’s decision to the Board of

Immigration Appeals (the “BIA”). The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision and

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Despite the fact that the IJ had rescinded his LPR status and his appeal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

on June 16, 1993, one day before the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal. In his

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 judgment against Cordero on the

ground that his naturalization had been illegally procured because he failed to

satisfy a statutory requirement, specifically, that an individual be lawfully

admitted to the United States for permanent residence. 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: 01/09/2012
No. 11-20324

not receive notice of 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 applied and was

granted citizenship. 

Cordero candidly admits that he has no authority whatsoever for his

argument that a BIA decision is not “final” until it is received by the parties.1

Thus, he abandons his sole issue by failing 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. 1993). 

Even were we to consider 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 and certificate of

naturalization are deemed “illegally procured” if the applicant fails to comply

with any of the prerequisites. Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490, 506

(1981) (citations omitted). In other words, if an applicant procures citizenship

“when prescribed 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 naturalization unless all statutory requirements are

complied with[.]”); see also United States v. Beda, 118 F.2d 458, 459 (2d Cir.

1941) (“Proof of fraud in obtaining a certificate is unnecessary to justify

Cordero does not seek to reopen the BIA proceeding for lack of notice (indeed, he does

1

not contest that his marriage was a sham and, therefore, the IJ ruled correctly), so cases

addressing that situation are inapposite. Indeed, in his brief, Cordero does not even attempt

to argue that he would have done anything differently had he received notice of the BIA’s

dismissal of his appeal. Moreover, even after learning of the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal,

Cordero did not seek judicial or other review.

3

Case: 11-20324 Document: 00511718241 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/09/2012
No. 11-20324

cancellation, illegality alone will subject a certificate to successful attack.”)

(citations omitted).

Since nothing in the statutes or regulations suggests that Cordero’s

argument about “finality” has weight, we conclude that he “illegally procured”

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 acquire American citizenship is a precious one,” and “once citizenship 2

has been acquired, its loss can have severe and unsettling consequences.” Fedorenko, 449 U.S.

at 505-06 (citations omitted). We caution, then, that our decision rests on the circumstances

here presented. We need not address the situation where an individual contests the

underlying facts, claims not to have received notice of the BIA’s dismissal of his case, and

seeks to re-open BIA proceedings.

4

Case: 11-20324 Document: 00511718241 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/09/2012