### 1998 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

3-12-1998 

# L a c a p v . IN S

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al :

D ock e t 97-3322

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_1998

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1998 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du

. 

### R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" L a ca p v . I N S " (1998). 1998 D e cisio n s

. P a pe r 45. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_1998/45Filed March 12, 1998

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 97-3322

RICARDO MANLAPAZ LACAP,

Petitioner

v.

IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent

On Petition for Review of a Decision and Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Bd. No. A73 558 974 -- Newark)

Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 9, 1998

BEFORE: GREENBERG, SCIRICA, and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges

(Filed: March 12, 1998)

Elly V. Pamatong 198 Broadway New York, NY 10038

Attorney for PetitionerFrank W. Hunger

Assistant Attorney General David M. McConnell Assistant Director Stephen W. Funk Senior Litigation Counsel Michael P. Lindemann Vernon B. Miles Office of Immigration Litigation Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Attorneys for Respondent

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Ricardo Manlapaz Lacap was born on Janua ry 23, 1951, in the Philippines, where he resided unti l 1991 when he illegally entered the United States. His pa rents, Fausto B. Lacap and Maria Manlapaz, were born in th e Philippines during the time it was a territorial po ssession of the United States between December 10, 1898, and Ju ly 4, 1946.

In deportation proceedings instituted against Lacap , he conceded that he was a citizen of the Philippines a nd was subject to deportation. He nevertheless contended t hat he should be granted asylum and the withholding of deportation under sections 208(a) and 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), 8 U.S.C. S 1158(a) and 1253(h). The immigration Judge denied Lacap's r equest on September 25, 1995, and, on Lacap's appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals sustained that result on May 14, 1997.

Lacap then filed a timely petition for review with this court on June 12, 1997. In the proceedings before t his court, Lacap does not challenge the administrative denial of

2his applications for asylum and the withholding of

deportation. Rather, he explains that the "only iss ue in this case is: whether [his] parents were born in the `Un ited States' within the Citizenship Clause of the Fourte enth Amendment." Br. at 43. He makes an intricate argume nt contending that they were born in the United States and thus were citizens of the United States. Accordingl y, he contends that he is a citizen of the United States by birth and cannot be deported.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Ci rcuit in Rabang v. INS, 35 F.3d 1449, 1454 (9th Cir. 1994 ), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 2554 (1995), examined the issue r aised in these proceedings and concluded that "Supreme Court precedent compels a conclusion that persons born in the Philippines during the territorial period were not` born . . . in the United States,' within the meaning of the Ci tizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and are thus no t entitled to citizenship by birth." We agree with th e result and reasoning of the court in Rabang and note that the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circu it recently has followed Rabang as well. See Valmonte v. INS, 1998 WL 54575 (2d Cir. Feb. 11, 1998). Consequently , it follows that Lacap is not entitled to relief in the se proceedings.

In view of the aforesaid, we will deny the petition for review of the decision and order of May 14, 1997, o f the Board of Immigration Appeals.

A True Copy: Teste:

Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

3