Opinion ID: 789256
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Actual Uncontested Custody

Text: 68 If no one had legal custody of Bagot under a New York decree, then were are left to the fallback actual uncontested custody prong of Matter ofM — . That decision makes clear that, where legal custody has not been determined by decree or statute, the parent having actual uncontested custody is to be regarded as having `legal custody' of the person concerned for the purpose of determining that person's status under [§ 1432(a)]. 3 I. & N. Dec. at 856. See Part III.B.2, supra. Therefore, if New York law did not fix Bagot's legal custody, his father had legal custody of him for derivative-citizenship purposes if, but only if, he had actual uncontested custody. We think it is clear that he did. Brian Bagot had actual physical custody of Odiri Bagot, who lived with him and attended high school in Brooklyn; Frances Wright approved of the arrangement; and no one else seems to have disputed his father's custody of Bagot at any time. In Matter of M —, a father who took care of his daughter was found to have legal custody, based on his actual uncontested custody, where he lived with the child and undertook to provide for her, and where the mother consented to his custody. 3 I. & N. Dec. at 851, 856. Similarly, in Charles, supra, 117 F.Supp.2d at 418, the court found actual, uncontested custody where the father had been responsible for the child's upbringing and the mother had consented to that custody. 69 In their brief, Respondents suggest that legal custody under the INA requires a court decree, and that, since no decree granted custody to Bagot's father, he could not have had legal custody. Respondents base this argument on the Fifth Circuit's conclusion in Nehme, supra, 252 F.3d at 427, that the term legal separation in § 1432(a)(3) requires a judicial decree of separation, not just living apart under legal circumstances. See also Brissett v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 130, 133-34 (2d Cir.2004). By analogy to Nehme and Brissett, Respondents conclude that a child of divorced parents whose custody has not been determined by a valid court decree is in the joint custody of both of his parents, and therefore cannot meet the requirement of § 1432(a)(3) unless both parents naturalize. Cf. Wedderburn, 215 F.3d at 800 (where parents share custody, both must naturalize to create derivative citizenship). 70 Respondents cite no authority for the proposition that legal custody, like legal separation, requires a court decree. We think that the two concepts are easily distinguishable, and that there is no inconsistency in requiring a court order for legal separation while allowing legal custody to be based on the consent of the parties or on undisputed physical custody. In fact, at oral argument, counsel for Respondents conceded that Matter of M — forecloses the argument that a decree is required to create legal custody: the BIA's longstanding position is that, in the absence of a decree, the parent with actual uncontested custody has legal custody for INA purposes. See also Bucknor v. Zemski, No. 01-3757, 2002 WL 442861,  (E.D.Pa. Mar. 21, 2002) (rejecting the argument that a court decree is required to establish legal custody for derivative-citizenship purposes). 71 Under the Matter of M — standard, Brian Bagot had actual uncontested custody of Odiri Bagot after the latter arrived in the United States in 1988. For INA purposes, therefore, he also had legal custody.