Opinion ID: 859170
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the government failed to prove its

Text: CASE BY CLEAR, UNEQUIVOCAL, AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE The district court correctly determined that Petitioner carried his initial burden of proving by a preponderance of the MONDACA -VEGA V . HOLDER 43 evidence that he is an American citizen by the name of Reynaldo Mondaca. Petitioner’s evidence demonstrating that he is Reynaldo Mondaca was as follows: Petitioner testified that he is Reynaldo Mondaca Carlon, born in Imperial, California, on July 17, 1931 to parents Antonia Carlon and Marin Mondaca. Petitioner presented an authentic birth certificate for Reynaldo Mondaca Carlon. Although born in California, Petitioner’s parents took him back to Mexico, where he grew up in El Fuerte, Sinaloa, Mexico. Petitioner did not learn to speak English, only Spanish. In Mexico, Petitioner worked with his parents as a farmer. When Petitioner was around 20 years old, he came back to the United States for the first time. In the United States, Petitioner worked in the fields, primarily with people from Mexico. Petitioner then returned to Mexico. He learned that he was an American citizen when he was given his birth certificate by his mother. Petitioner used his birth certificate to come back to the United States, specifically, California and Washington. It is undisputed that Reynoldo Mondaca applied for a social security card on May 23, 1953. The application indicated that his parents were Antonia Carlon and Marin Mondaca and that he was born on July 17, 1931, in Imperial, California. The parties also stipulated that “[a]ccording to handwriting analyses provided by experts for both parties, . . . the signature on the application (‘Reynaldo C. Mondaca’) 44 MONDACA -VEGA V . HOLDER appears to be made by Petitioner.”10 Petitioner’s social security card is under the name Reynaldo Mondaca, and Petitioner has always used the Social Security number associated with the card. Petitioner qualifies for Social Security benefits. Petitioner met his wife (now deceased) in El Fuerte, Mexico. Petitioner and his wife had nine children, three of whom were born in the United States. Petitioner presented a marriage certificate and baptismal certificates for his children, all of which indicate that he is Reynaldo Mondaca. Petitioner’s passport, issued by the U.S. Department of State, is also under the name Reynaldo Mondaca. For several years after Petitioner and his wife were married, Petitioner’s wife and children lived in Mexico, while Petitioner worked in California. Petitioner would return to Mexico about once a year to spend time with his family. Eventually, Petitioner brought his entire family to the United States. In 1977, Petitioner’s six children born in Mexico obtained United States citizenship or Lawful Permanent Resident status through Petitioner’s status as a United States citizen. Also in 1977, Petitioner’s wife became a Legal Permanent Resident based on Petitioner’s status as a United States citizen. 10 In 1952 someone claiming to be Salvador Mondaca-Vega applied for a social security card, but the government did not present any evidence tying that application to Petitioner. Unlike Reynaldo Mondaca’s application, Salvador Mondaca-Vega’s application does not contain a signature. MONDACA -VEGA V . HOLDER 45 Because Petitioner established a prima facie case that he is an American citizen named Reynaldo Mondaca, the government was required to present clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that Petitioner was not who he claimed to be. Specifically, the government claimed that Petitioner is a Mexican citizen named Salvador Mondaca-Vega, who was born in El Mahone, Sinaloa, Mexico on June 3, 1931.11 Upon review of the record, I do not believe that the government met its high burden. The district court made numerous findings that are either not supported by the record or are based on speculation. Here are some examples. 1. As the majority recognizes and both parties agree, there is no evidence in the record to support the district court’s findings that Petitioner was deported in July 1951, September 1951, and November 1952. Maj. at 24. 2. The majority concedes that the district court engaged in speculation when it determined that Petitioner was required to present his birth certificate when applying for a social security card in May 1953. Maj. at 24. That speculation is problematic. It led the district court to incorrectly conclude that Petitioner did not rightfully possess an authentic United States birth certificate. The district court incorrectly reasoned that Petitioner would have had to obtain his birth certificate before applying 11 The government contends that the “ultimate issue in this case is whether Petitioner is Salvador Mondaca-Vega . . . or Reynaldo Mondaca Carlon.” See also Maj. at 25 (holding that “the district court’s key finding, that Petitioner is Salvador M ondaca-Vega, is not clearly erroneous”). 46 MONDACA -VEGA V . HOLDER for his social security card. The district court took judicial notice of geographical distances to conclude that “[i]t would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible” for Petitioner to have retrieved a birth certificate from his mother in El Fuerte, prior to applying for a social security card in Calexico, California, on May 23, 1953. From there, the district court concluded that Petitioner must have obtained his Reynaldo Mondaca birth certificate “at some location near the border between the United States and Mexico on either May 22nd or May 23rd.” There is no evidence in the record to support the district court’s conclusion that Petitioner obtained his birth certificate in this manner. Rather, the only evidence in the record is that Petitioner obtained his birth certificate from his mother. 3. The district court further speculated that when Petitioner was detained by INS, Petitioner always had his birth certificate, and that Petitioner’s failure to identify himself as Reynaldo Mondaca was “inexplicable.” The district court seemed to believe that this is contrary to how an American citizen would act. But Petitioner, who does not speak English, stated he used an alias when he did not have his birth certificate and U.S. passport with him to show his United States citizenship. The district court speculated when it assumed what someone in Petitioner’s position would or would not have done in the early 1950s. See Chawla v. Holder, 599 F.3d 998, 1006 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that the “BIA’s disbelief of Chawla’s decision . . . was based on speculation and conjecture about what someone in Chawla’s position would or would not do”); Zhou v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 860, 865 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that the IJ’s “disbelief of Zhou’s testimony was . . . based on speculation and conjecture about Zhou’s position in Chinese society and what someone in that position would or would not do”). MONDACA -VEGA V . HOLDER 47 4. The district court also speculated that each time Petitioner was deported it was contrary to his financial interest, and thus, implausible that he would not have identified himself as an American citizen. The district court speculated that on July 28, 1953, it was “a busy time of year for an agricultural laborer,” and thus, it would “not [have been] in the petitioner’s financial interest to be removed from the United States at this time.” Similarly, the district court presumed that when Petitioner was detained on September 15, 1954, there was “a great deal of agricultural work,” and it “was in the petitioner’s financial interest to remain in the United States.” There is no evidence in the record to support the district court’s findings regarding the employment opportunities for a farm worker, Petitioner’s financial motives, or how conditions at the border were controlled in the early 1950s. See United States v. Berber-Tinoco, 510 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A trial judge is prohibited from relying on his personal experience to support the taking of judicial notice.” (internal quotations and citation omitted)); Paramasamy v. Ashcroft, 295 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that “the IJ improperly substituted her own hypothesis for the evidence in the record” when she acknowledged that “Paramasamy was afraid to return to Sri Lanka” but “then speculated about Paramasamy’s ‘real’ motives” including “‘the anticipation of better job opportunities’”). 5. Finally, the district court speculated that Petitioner began using the name Reynaldo Mondaca because of his marriage and his desire to obtain benefits. Not only is this finding not supported by the record, but the evidence demonstrates that Petitioner used his name Reynaldo Mondaca in 1953, almost twenty years prior to his marriage, when he applied for a social security card. 48 MONDACA -VEGA V . HOLDER