Pursuant to 5thCir. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not b e * publishe da ndi snot precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forthin5th Cir. R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60142 Su m m ar y Cal endar
J O R G E M A R Q U E Z -M O R A L E S , P et i t i on er,

v. E R IC H . H O L D E R , J R ., U .S . A T T O R N E YG E N E R A L , R esp on d en t.
Pet i t i o n f

o rRev i e w o f

a n Ord e ro f

t he B o a r do f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls B IAN o. A 044- 762- 001
B ef ore JO L L Y , W IE N E R , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Jo r ge M ar que z - M o r al e s , ana t ive a nd c i t i z e n o f M e xi c o , s e e ks r e vi e w o f t he
or derof t he B oar d of

I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B IA) di sm i ss i ng hi s appealf r om an I m mi g r a t i o n J u d g e ’ s d e c i s i o n f i n d i n gh i m r e mo v a b l e p u r s u a n tt o 8 U. S
. C. §§ 1182( a) ( 9) (A) (i i) and 1182( a) ( 6) (A) (i)
. H e a l so s ee ks r evi ew of t he B IA ’ s deni al
o f hi s m o t i o n t o r e c o ns i de rt he o r de ra f f i r m i ng t he I J’ s de c i s i o n. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 5, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-60142 Document: 00511102050 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2010N o. 09- 60142

2 I. M arqu ez- M oral es w as born i n M exi co t o hi s m ot h er, Josef i n a M oral es A n da zol a, a M exi can cit i zen. N o fa t h er w as i den t i f i ed on hi s bi rt h cer t i f i cat e. In 199 4, an O klahom a st ate c ou rtaw arded hi s father, Jesus Jose M arqu ez, per m anentand ex cl usive c ust ody of M ar quez- M or al es . M ar quez w as nat ur al i z e d i n M ar c h, 1 99 8. I n J une 2 00 8, t he D e pa r t m e ntof H o m e l and S e c u r i t yc h a r g e dM a r q u e z - M o r a l e s a s s u bj e c tt o r e m o v a lp u r s u a n tt o 8 U. S
. C. § 118 2( a) ( 9) (A) (i i)
. Th e char g es al l egedt h at M arqu ez- M oral es had been previ ou sl y rem ovedf rom the U n i t ed S t ates un der an ou t st an di n g rem oval order i n D ecem ber 200 3 , a n d t h at he ha d been convi ct ed i n 200 5 of t h e of fen se of
r e e n t r yo f

ad e p o r t e da l i e n p r e v i o u s l yc o n v i c t e do f a n a g g r a v a t e dfe l o n y . D HS al soc harge d h i m as s ubj ec tt o r em ovalunder 8 U
. S. C
. § 1182( a) ( 6) (A) (i) as an al i e n pr e s e nti n t he U ni t e d St at e s w i t ho ut be i ng l awf ul l y ad m i t t e d o rpa r o l e d,
or w h o arrived i n t h e U n i t ed Stat es at a t i m e or pl ace ot h er t h an t h at desi gn ated b yth e U n ite dS ta te s A tt o r n e yG e n e r a l. B ef or e the I J, M ar quez- M or al es deni ed bot h c harge s on t he gr ounds t hat he w as e nt i t l e d t o de r iva t ive c i t i z e ns hi p un de rf o r m e rs e c t i o n 3 21 ( a) ( 3) of t he Im m i grati on an d N ati on al i t y A ct , 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1432 ( a) ( 3) (repeal ed 20 00), w h i ch p r o v id e dcit iz e n s h ip fo rach ildb o r n o u ts i d e t h e U n ite dS ta te s th r o u g h , i n t er a lia , t h e na t u ral i zati on of t h e paren tha vi n g l egal custody of t h e ch i l d w h en t he r e ha d b e e n al e ga ls e pa r at i o n o f t he paren t s , o rt he na t ur ali z at i o n o f t he
m ot h er if

t h e chi l d w as born ou tof w edl ock an d the p a te rn ityw as not
e s t ab l i s he d b y l e git i m ati o n. The I J de t e r m i ne d t hathe di d no tm e e tt he st at ut or y r equi r em ent s of s ec t i on 321( a) ( 3) and r ej ec t ed hi s al t er nat ive argu m en tt h at f

orm er sect i on 3 21(a) ( 3) w as u n constit u t i on al
. T h e B IAaf f i rm ed t hatde c i s i o n. O n appeal , M ar quez- M or al es ar gu es t hathe i s ent i t l ed t o de r ivat ive c i t i z e ns hi p b e c aus e t he O kl aho m a c o ur t ’ s c us t o dyor de rsho ul d b e c o ns i de r e d a “le g a l s e p a r a tio n ” fo rth e p u r p o s e s o f fo r m e rs e c tio n 3 2 1 (a )(3 ) e v e n th o u g h h is Case: 09-60142 Document: 00511102050 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2010N o. 09- 60142

3 pa rents w ere n ever m arri ed. A l t erna t ivel y, h e argu es t h at f orm er se cti on 32 1( a) ( 3) w as unc o ns t i t ut i o n alb ec aus e i te s t ab l i s he s “t w o dif fe r e nts t and ar ds f orm en and w om en” be c ause an unm ar r i ed m ot herc an con fer de r ivat ive c itiz e n s h ip o n h e rch ildb u t a n u n m a r r ie dfa th e rca n n o t. II. Thi s c o ur tha s li m i t ed j u ri sdi ct i on t o consi der chall en ges t o rem oval orders based on the com m i ssi on of an aggrav ated fel on y. T h e R E A L ID A ctam en ded 8 U
. S. C. § 1 25 2( a) ( 2) ( C) t o pr e c l ude j udi c i al r e vi e w o f a ny r e m o va lo r de rb as e d, i n t e ra l i a , o n a n a l i e n ’ s c o m m i s s i o no f a n a g g r a va t e d fe l o n y . 8 U. S
. C. 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(C ); Her n a n d ez- Cast i l lo v. Moore , 436 F
. 3d 516 , 518

- 19 (5t h C i r. 200 6)
. T h e A ct provi des, h ow ever, t h at n on e of i t s provi si on s “ sha l lbe const rued
as pr e c l udi ng r e vi e w o f c o ns t i t ut i o nalc l ai m s o rq ue s t i o ns o f l aw r ai s e d up o n a peti t i on f

or r evi ew . ” 8 U
. S .C . § 1 2 5 2( a) ( 2) (D )
. W e m ay revi ew M arqu ezM o ra les ’ s “c la im to b e an a tion a l of th e U n ited S ta te s, a n dd e cid e su ch cla im if, as her e, t he pl eadi ngs and af f i davi t s r ef

l ec tt hatno g enui ne i ss ue o f m at er i al fac tabo utt he pet i t i oner ’ s nat i onal i t y i s pre se nt ed
. ” Marq uez - Marq uezv. G on zales , 45 5 F
. 3 d54 8 , 55 4 (citi n g 8 U
. S
. C
. § 12 5 2 (b)( 5 ))
. A s th e claim pr ese n ts a qu est i on of

l aw , our revi ew i s de no vo . Id
. W e first con siderM a rq u ez -M o r a le s’ s ar gu m en t t h a t he i s en ti tl ed to derivative ci t i zensh i p unde rf o r m e rs e c t i o n 3 21 ( a) ( 3)
. Bec aus e M arqu ez- M oral es w a s n o t b o r n in t h e U n ite dS ta te s , n a tu r a liz a tio n is h is “ s o le s o u r c e fo racla im of ci ti ze n sh i p . ” Marqu ez- Marqu ez , 455 F
. 3d at 554
. H e b e a rs th e b u rden of provi n g t h at h e qu al i f i es f or n atural i zati on , an d t h i s court resolves al ldou bts on th e m a tt e rin fa v o ro f th e U n ite dS ta te s . S e eid
. B e c a u s e h e tu r n e de ig h te e n in 19 97 , t he pr o vi s i o ns o f f o r m e r s e c t i o n 32 1( a) ap ply t o hi s c l ai m . Tho s e pr o vi s i o ns w ere r epe al ed byt he C hi l d C i t i ze nshi p A c tof 2000, Pu b. L. N o. 106- 395, 114 S ta t. 1 6 3 1 (2 0 0 0 ), b u t a s M a r q u e z -M o r a le s a c k n o w le d g e s , t h e C h ildC itiz e n s h ip A c t is n o t r e tr o a c tiv e . T h u s , h is cla im is g o v e r n e db yS e c tio n 3 2 1 (a ). S e eNe h me v . I NS , 2 5 2 F .3 d4 1 5 , a t 4 3 0 -3 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). Case: 09-60142 Document: 00511102050 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/05/2010N o. 09- 60142

4 Form ers ec t i on 321(a) of h e Im m i gr a ti on an dN a ti on a l i ty A ct pro vided that

“ a chi l d born outsi de the U n i t ed S t ates of a l i en p aren t s . . . becom es a c i t i zen of t he U ni t e d St at e s ” upo n “t he na t ur ali z at i o n o f t he pa r e ntha vi ng l e ga lc us t o dy
o f t he c hi l d w h en th er e h a s b ee n alega l sep a ra tion of th e p a re n ts ; an d if
. . . such
n a tu r a liz a tio nta k e s p la c e w h ile s u c h ch ildis u n d e rth e a g e o f 1 8 y e a r s ; a n d
. . . su ch c h i l d i s r esi di n g i n t h e U n i t ed S t ates pu rsuan tt o l aw f u ladm i ssi on f

or perm an en tres i den ce att h e t i m e of t h e na t u ral i zati on of t h e paren t
. ” M arqu ezM o r al e s c l ai m s t hat , de s pi t e t he fac tt hathi s pa r e nt s n ever m ar r i e d a nd t hus coul d not be l egally separated, h e i s en t i t l ed t o ci t i zensh i p because h is fa th er o bt ai ne d “l e ga lc us t o dy” o f hi m w he n he w as unde r ag e e i ght e e n. H e c o nt e nds t h at h e is n otrequ i red t o d em on st rat e tha th i s paren t s w ere l egally separated becau se C on gress’ s i n t en ti n draf t i n g S ect i on 321 ( a) w as t h e prot ect i on of p a re n ta l righ ts b yen su rin gh a t on ly th o se a li e n ch il d re n “w h o se re a l i n te re st[s ]’
w e r e lo c a te din A m e r ic aw ith th e ircu s to d ia l p a r e n t” w o u ldb e a u to m a tic a lly
n a tu r a liz e d
. M a r q u e z -M o r a le s ’ s a r g u m e n t is fo r e c lo s e db yth is co u r t ’s d e c is io n in Ne h me , w h i ch h el d t h at a chi l d born overseas t o al i en pa rents w as not entit l ed t o na t u ral i zati on w h en hi s father w as na t u ral i zed b u t h is pa rents n ever obt ai ned a “l egals epar at i on ” or d i vorc e underPennsylvani a l aw . 252 F. 3d at 418- 20. W e a l soc l ar i f i ed t hat“l egals epar at i on” m eanta “ j udi c i als e p a r a tio n ,” id
. at426 , b u th e h as p resented n o ev i den ce that hi s paren t s w ere ever m arri ed or j u di ci al l y separated. O t h er c i rcui t s hav e l i kew i se c on cl u d e d tha tf orm er s e c tio n 3 2 1 (a )(3 ) r e q u ir e s ale g a l s e p a r a tio n o f m a r r ie dp a r e n ts b e fo r e as in g le p a r e n t c a n co n fe ra u to m a tic cit iz e n s h ip o n a n a lie n ch ild
. Se e Bar t he le m y v . A sh cr oft , 329 F
. 3d106 2, 106 5, 106 7- 6 8 ( 9th C i r. 200 3) (f i n di n g t h at because
a lie n ’ s p a r e n ts n e v e r m a rr ie da n dth u s co u ldn o t le g a llys e p a r a te , th e a lie n co u ld
n o t e s ta b lis h cit iz e n s h ip u n d e rfo r m e rs e c t i o n 3 2 1 (a )(3 )); W e d d e r b u r n v . I

NS , 2 1 5 F
. 3 d79 5 , 79 9 -80 0 ( 7 th C i r. 20 0 0 ) (con cl u d i n g th a t B IAacted w i th i n i ts Case: 09-60142 Document: 00511102050 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/05/2010N o. 09- 60142

We also note that Marquez-Morale s ha s not pursued his arguments madebefore the 1 BIA that his parent s’ relation ship constitute d a “common law” marriageunder Oklahomalaw or thathe qualifie d f

ord erivativecitiz enship under 8 U .S.C. § 1 409 . These arguments are theref ore waived
. Pro ctor &Gamble Co. v. Amway Cor p. , 3 7 6 F
. 3 d 4 9 6 , 4 9 9 n . 1 (5th Cir. 2 0 0 4). 5 aut hor i t y i n co nst r ui ng “ l egals eparati on ” t o m ean an al t er at i on i n m ar i t al statu s). A ccord i n gly, w e fi n dh i s cl a i m to be w i th ou t m erit. 1 W e a l sor ej ec tM ar quez- M or al es ’ s ar gum entt hatf or m ers ec t i on 321( a) ( 3) vi o l at e s t he EqualPr o t e ct i on C l aus e b y e s t ab l i s hi ng “t w o dif fe r e nts t and ar ds f o rm e n a nd wom e n. ” T h i s c o ur tha s r e c o gni z e d t hat“ [ a] n a l i e n ha s no constit u t i on alri gh tt o cit i zensh i p w h i ch i s a privi l ege confer red as a m att er of grace by C on gress u n der A rt i cl e I , Secti on 8 of t h e U n i t ed S tates constit u t i on r e la t iv e to th e p o w e ro f C o n g r e s s ‘t o e s t a b li s h au n if o r m r u le o f N a t u r a li z a t io n .’” V i l la n u e v a - Ju r a do v . I NS , 482 F. 2d 886, 887 ( 5t h C i r . 1973) (c i t i ng R oge rs v. B el lei , 4 0 1 U .S . 8 1 5 , 8 4 0 (1 9 7 1 )). C o n g r e s s h a s a“c o m p l e t e l yfr e e h a n din d efi n i n g citi ze n sh i p as itrelates to p erso n s bo rn ab roa d
. ” I d. (c i t at i o n a nd i n t erna lq u o ta t i on m arks om i t t ed). C h al l en ges t o I N Acl assi f i cat i on s are ty p ic a llys u bje c t t o ra tio n a l b a s is re v ie w , D e Fu ente s v. G on zales , 462 F. 3d 498, 503 ( 5th C i r. 200 6) , bu tgen der ba sed cl assi f i cat i on s r eceive revi ew un der a he i ght e ne d s t and ar d. I n Ng uy e n v . I NS , 533 U
. S
. 53 ( 200 1) , t h e Su prem e C ou rt
s t at e d t hatg e nde r - ba s e d c l as s i f i c at i o ns i n t he I N A m us ts e r ve “i m po r t ant gov er nm ent alobj ec t ives . . and t he di sc r i m i nat or y m eans em pl oye d” m ustbe “su b stan ti a l lyre l a tedto t h e a ch i ev em en ts of th ese obj ectives.” Id
. at60- 61 (c ita tio n o m itt e d ). W e fi n dtha t N

guyen ’ s hei gh t en ed scruti n y i s not t ri ggered h ere w h ere M arqu ez- M oral es has n otargu ed a tr u e “ gen der- base d”cl assi f i cat i on . M arqu ezM oral es bases hi s equa lprot ect i on cl ai m on l an gu age f rom f orm er s ect i on 321 ( a) ( 3) , w h i ch provides t h at an al i en chi l d born outsi de the U n i t ed S t ates be c o m e s a c i t i z e n w he n, am o ng o t he r fac t o r s , “ t he nat ur ali z at i o n o f t he pa r e nt hav i ng l e ga lc us t o dyo f t he c hi l d w he n t he r e has b e e n al e ga ls e pa r at i o n o f t he Case: 09-60142 Document: 00511102050 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/05/2010N o. 09- 60142

6 pa rents or t h e naturalizat i on of t h e m ot h er if

t h e c h i l dw as born ou tof w edloc k
an dt h e pate rnity of t h e c h i l dha s notbeen est ab l i shedby legi t i m ati on .” § 32 1( a) ( 3) ( e m pha s i s ad de d)
. H e ar gue s t hat ge nde r - di s c r i m i nat i o n i s pr e s e nt bec ause “ onl y t he [unm ar r i ed] m ot her ’ s nat urali zat i on” coul d conferder ivat ive c itiz e n s h ip , w h e r e a s h is fa th e r ’ s n a tu r a liz a tio n c o u ldn o t c o n fe rth e s a m e . T h is argu m en tm i sses t h e m ark. M arqu ez- M oral es’ s father est abli shed paterni t y, so th e p rov i sion reg a rd i n g m oth ers of ch i l d ren b orn ou t of w ed l ock w h ere pa tern i ty i s n ot e stab l i sh ed is in a p p l i ca b l e. T h u s, h i s m oth er w a s si m i l a rl y p ow erless to confercit i zensh i p u pon hi m t h rough her na t u ral i zati on al on e. A s s u ch, w h ere m ot h ers an d fathers o f c h i l dren w h ose pater n i t y i s es t abli shed are t reat ed
s im ila r ly , M a r q u e z -M o r a le s ’ s cla im d o e s n o t im p lic a te e q u a l p r o te c tio n . M or eo ver , ev en as sum i ng argu end o t h at he ha d s h ow n a gen der- based
c la s s ific a t io n , w e w o u ldn e v e r th e le s s co n c lu d e th a t fo r m e rs e c tio n 3 2 1 (a )(3 ) is
no tunc o ns t i t ut i o nal
. I n N guyen , t he Suprem e Courtr ej ec t ed a c ons t i t ut i onal
c hall e nget o 8 U
. S. C. § 14 09 ( a) , w hi c h pr e s c r ibe ho w pe r s o ns b o r n a br o adt o o ne U n i t ed Stat es- ci t i zen paren t an d one n on - ci t i zen paren t acqu i red cit i zensh i p f or t he c hi l d when t he pa r e nt s w e r e no tm ar r i e d. 5 33 U
. S. a t6 2- 70
. Al t ho ught he st atute i m posedrequi rem en t s on t h e chi l dren of a ci t i zen father w h i ch w ere not i m po s e d when t he c i t i z e n pa r e ntw as t he m ot h er, the c o ur tf o und t hatt he gender

- bas ed c l as sif i c at i on m eth eighte ned s c r ut i ny as t he di st i nct i on w as sub s t ant i all y r e l at e d t o s e r vi ng t he i m po r t ant go ve r nm e nt al i nt e r e s t s of

“ as sur i ng t hat a bi ol ogi c alpar ent
- c hi l d r el at i ons hi p ex i st s” and “ ens uri ng t hat t h e chi l d an d the ci t i zen p aren tha ve som e dem on st rat ed op portun i t y or p o te n tia l to d e v e lo p ” m o r e t h a n a m e r e le g a lly -r e c o g n iz e dre la tio n s h ip
. Id
. at 6 2
. A s th e r e , w e fin d th a t C o n g r e s s is e n tit le d to p r e s c r ib e r u le s fo rcit iz e n s h ip th a t r e fle c t d iffe r e n c e s in th e w a yu n m a r r ie dp a r e n ts e s ta b lis h ab io lo g ic a l tie to th e a lie n ch ild
. F i n al l y, w e note t h at t w o ot h er c i rcui t s h a ve rej ect ed si m i l ar chal l en ges t o f o r m e rs e c t i o n 3 21 ( a) ( 3)
. I n B a r t h e le my , t he N i nt h Ci r c ui ta s s um e d wi t ho ut Case: 09-60142 Document: 00511102050 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/05/2010N o. 09- 60142

7 deci din gth a t s ect i on 321 ( a) ( 3) enti t l ed the al i en t o “t h e hi gh er s t an da rd of
s c r u t i ny, ” b uthe l d t hatt he a l i e n’ s e qua lpr o t e c t i o n c l ai m fail e d wher e he ad m i t t e d hi s fat he r had l e git i m at e d hi m . 3 29 F. 3da t1 06 6- 68
. I n W edd erburn , th e S e v e n th C i rcu i t con cl u d ed tha t secti on 32 1 (a)( 3 )’ s cl a ssif i ca ti on w a s n ot a
sex- based cl assi f

i cat i on at al l , bu t rat h er a c l assi f i cat i on based on w h et h er ornot th e ch ildh a db e e n le g it i m a t e d
. 2 1 5 F .3 da t 8 0 1 -0 2
. A c c o r d in g ly , w e d e n yh is p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. P ET I T I ON D ENI ED
. Case: 09-60142 Document: 00511102050 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/05/2010