NO T F O R P UBLI CATI O N

UNI T E D S T A T E S COURT OF A P P E A L S

F OR T H E NI NT H CI RCUI T

CL A RE NCE A GCA OI L I H E RNA NDE Z

,

P eti ti o n er ,

v

.

WI L L I A M P

. B A RR, A ttor n ey Gen er al

,

Res pon d en

t. No. 09- 73088

A g en cy No. A 038- 108- 925

M E M O RA

NDUM *

On P eti ti on f or Rev i ew of

an Or der of th e B oar d of I m

m i g r ati on A ppeal s

A r g u ed an d S u

bm i tted O ctober 18, 2012

S u bm i s s i on V acated Nov em

ber 2

, 2012

Res u bm i tted A u g u s t 31, 2020 **

H on ol u l u , H awai i

B ef or e: T H OM A S

, Ch i ef J u d g e, an d P A E Z

, Ci r cu i t J u dg e * * * 

# FI L E D

S E P 2 2020

M O LLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. COURT OF APPEAL S

* T h i s di s pos i ti on

i s n ot appr opr i ate f

o r p u bl i cati on an d i s n o t pr eceden t

ex cept as pr ov i ded by Ni n th Ci r cu i t Ru l e 36- 3.

* * T h e pan el u

n an i m ou s l y con cl u des th i s r es u

bm i tted cas e i s s u i tabl e f

or deci s i on wi th ou

t or al ar g u m en t. See F ed. R. A

pp. P

. 34( a) ( 2)

.

* * * T h i s cas e i s deci ded by qu or u m of th e pan el

. See 28 U. S

. C. § 46( d) ; Ni n t h Ci r cu i t Gen er al Or der 3. 2( h )Cl ar en ce H er n an dez peti t i on s f

or r ev i ew of a d eci s i on b y th e B oar d of

I m m i g r ati on A ppeal s ( “ B I A ”) di s m

i s s i n g h i s appeal o f a deci si on by an

i m m i g r ati on j u dg e ( “ I J ”) deter m i n i n g th at h e h ad n ot acqu i r ed der i v ati v e

ci ti zen sh i p an d was r em ov abl e as ch ar g ed. We h av e ju r i s di cti on u

n der 8 U. S

. C.

§ 1252 an d we den

y t h e peti ti on

. B ecau s e th e par ti es ar e f am i l i ar wi t h th e h i s tor y

of th e cas e, we n eed n ot r ecou n t i t h er e.

H er n an dez ar g

u ed i n h i s or i g i n al peti ti on f o r r ev i ew th at th e B I A

i m pr oper l y

h el d th at th e I J was ju s t i f

i ed i n den y i n g h i s f i f th r equ es t f

or a con t i n u an ce.

B ecau s e we deter

m i n ed t h er e wer e g en

u i n e f actu al di s p u

tes r eg ar di n g th e m

ar i tal

s tatu s of H er

n an dez’ s p ar en

ts at th e ti m

e of h i s bi r

th th at wer e r el ev an

t to th e

deter m i n ati on of wh eth er h e was en ti tl ed to der i v ati v e ci ti zen sh i p, we tr an s f er r ed

th e p eti ti on to th e Di str i ct of H awai i

, pu r s u an t to 8 U. S

. C. § 1252( b) ( 5) ( B ) f or th e

l i m i t ed pu r pos e o f m aki n g a deter

m i n ati on o f h i s ci ti zen s h i p cl ai m

. T h e di s tr i ct

cou r t per m i tted l en g th

y d i s cov er

y , con du cted a ben ch tr i al

, an d i s s u ed ex ten s i v e

f i n di n g s of f

act an d con cl u s i on s of l aw. T h e d i s tr i ct cou r t con cl u ded th at

H er n an dez h ad f

ai l ed to m eet h i s bu

r den of pr oof

as to h i s cl ai m of

der i v ati v e

ci ti zen sh i p.

H er n an dez n o w con

tes ts th e di str i ct cou

r t’ s con cl u s i on

. H owev er , on car ef u l

r ev i ew, w e f

i n d n o cl ear er

r or i n th e di s tr i ct cou

r t ’ s con cl u s i on s. S ee United States

2v. M

er cado- M or eno , 869 F .3d 9 42, 953 ( 9th Ci r

. 2017) ( “ We r ev i ew f actu al

f i n di n g s

. . . f

or cl ear er r or

. ” ( ci tati on s an d qu otati on s om i t ted) )

. H er

n an dez al s o

cl ai m s t h at th e di s tr i ct cou

r t abu s ed i ts d i s cr eti on i n ex cl u di n g a pu r por t ed

m ar r i ag e con tr act. H o wev er , th e r ecor d di s cl os es th at th e di s t r i ct cou r t di d, i n f act,

adm i t th e con tr act i n to ev i den ce pu

r s u an t t o V a tyan v. M

ukas ey , 508 F

. 3d 1179,

1183, 1 185 ( 9th Ci r

. 2007)

.

H er n an dez al s o ar g

u es th at th e di s t

r i ct cou r t abu s ed i ts di s cr eti on

i n

ex cl u di n g th

r ee oth er pi eces of ev i den ce, b u t we ag r ee wi th th e di s tr i ct cou r t th at

th i s ev i d en ce was pr o per l y ex cl u ded. Depos i ti on tes t i m on y was pr oper l y ex cl u ded

as h ear say tes t i m

on y becau s e th e depon en

t was av ai l abl e an d tes t i f

i ed. S ee F ed. R.

E v i d. 804( b) ( 1)

. A ten d er ed af f i dav i t was al s o pr oper l y ex cl u ded as i m p r oper

h ear s ay tes ti m

on y

. See F ed. R. E v i d 801( c)

. T h e di s tr i ct cou r t di d n ot abu s e i ts

di s cr eti o n i n ex cl u di n g

a ph otog r aph th at was n ot pr odu ced i n di s cov er y

.

M or eov er , n on e of th e ex cl u ded ev i den ce was r el ev an t to th e cou

r t’ s con cl u s i on

.

Gi v en th e di s tr i ct cou

r t’ s de n ov o deter

m i n ati on t h at H er n an dez d i d n ot

s u s t ai n h i s bu

r den of pr oof to es tabl i s h der i v ati v e ci ti zen s h i p, t h e B I A di d n o t er

r

i n r each i n g th e s am e con cl u si on , n or di d th e I J abu s e i ts di s cr eti on i n den y i n g

H er n an dez’ s f

i f th r equ es t f

or a con ti n u an ce. See A n Na P

eng v. H older

, 673 F

. 3d

31248, 1 253 ( 9th Ci r

. 2012) ( r ev i ewi n g th e d en i al of a con ti n u an ce f or abu s e of

di s cr eti o n )

.

T h er ef or e, we d en

y th e peti ti on f

or r ev i ew. 1

P ETI TI O N DENI ED.

1 Gi v en ou

r deter m i n ati on , we v acate ou

r pr i or or der

dated October 14, 2016
di r ecti n g s u

ppl em en tal br i ef i n g

.

4