Opinion ID: 799598
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Constitutionality of Section 201(g)'s Age-Based Requirement

Text: The parties do not dispute that the plain language of the statute requires that Guzman's United States citizen mother must have been physically present in the United States for five years after the age of sixteen and prior to Guzman's birth in order for him to derive citizenship through her under section 201(g). Instead, Guzman argues that the statute is unconstitutional because the age-based requirement for the United States citizen parent violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court, under the rational basis test, found that this requirement is constitutional because it is rationally related to Congressional intent to foster ties between the foreign-born child and the United States. Guzman challenges the district court's rational basis finding, and argues that the district court should have applied intermediate scrutiny to analyze whether the age-based requirement is unconstitutionally discriminatory toward children of young parents. The role of the courts in analyzing an equal protection challenge to a federal immigration statute is limited to determining whether the statute at issue is conceivably related to the achievement of the federal interest. Almario v. Att'y Gen., 872 F.2d 147, 152 (6th Cir.1989) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court's long-acknowledged deference to Congress with respect to immigration law has led this court to uphold statutory distinctions between classes of aliens if predicated on a rational basis. Hamama v. INS, 78 F.3d 233, 237 (6th Cir.1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). Even in the non-immigration context, [s]tates may discriminate on the basis of disability or age as long as the classification is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Coleman v. Ct. App. of Md., ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 1327, 1349, 182 L.Ed.2d 296 (2012). [W]hen conducting rational basis review we will not overturn such government action unless the varying treatment of different groups or persons is so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that we can only conclude that the government's actions were irrational. Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 84, 120 S.Ct. 631, 145 L.Ed.2d 522 (2000) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). The district court did not err in applying the rational basis test to this claim. The district court also did not err in finding that section 201(g)'s age-based requirement is constitutional; section 201(g) is rationally related to Congress's interest in achieving the legitimate purpose of ensuring that the citizen parent has developed adult ties to the United States sufficient to pass along these ties to the child. See, e.g., Ruiz v. INS, 410 F.2d 382, 383 (6th Cir.1969) (per curiam) (reviewing Board of Immigration Appeals' findings under section 201(g)); United States v. Perez-Toledo, 259 Fed.Appx. 915, 916 (9th Cir.2007) (same).