Opinion ID: 204100
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Petitioner's Claim of Derivative U.S. Citizenship

Text: Petitioner's claim of derivative citizenship presents a Catch-22 for him. Petitioner cannot pick and choose his status to satisfy the CCA's cumulative requirements. As Respondent rightfully points out, Petitioner claims to be his grandparents' child for one purpose [(being lawfully admitted into the United States as an LPR)], and his mother's child for others [(obtaining derivative U.S. citizenship)] . . . . Resp't's Br. at 32, n.17. Even then, however, Petitioner is inconsistent about whether he was ever actually adopted by his grandparents. On the one hand, Petitioner concedes that his adoption by the Walkers was not a legal process. Pet'r's Br. at 3. Not only does Petitioner make this concession in his brief, but he did so multiple times throughout the administrative proceedings: in testimony before the IJ; in his notice appealing the IJ's May 13, 2008 decision; in his brief in support of his application for derivative citizenship; and in his Form N-600 Application for Certificate of Citizenship. On the other hand, Petitioner claims in his brief that, because Vashtie adopted him or he was otherwise her child, he held a viable LPR status in 1992. Pet'r's Br. at 4-6. Even if Petitioner was indeed lawfully adopted by the Walkers in 1985, then it is unclear how he would qualify for the first of the three requirements of the CCA, that [a]t least one parent of the child is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization. INA § 320(a)(1); 8 U.S.C. § 1431(a)(1). It is undisputed that the Walkers are not U.S. citizens. It has not been established that Petitioner's biological father, Anderson, is a U.S. citizen or, even if he is, that he qualifies as Petitioner's parent for the purposes of section 320(a)(1) of the INA. It has also not been established that Wynter, though incontrovertibly a U.S. citizen, qualifies as Petitioner's parent for the purposes of section 320(a)(1) of the INA. If Petitioner was not lawfully adopted by the Walkers, then, given the analysis above, Petitioner does not qualify for the third of the three requirements of the CCA, that [t]he child is residing in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence. INA § 320(a)(3); 8 U.S.C. § 1431(a)(1). Petitioner has thus failed to establish his claim to derivative U.S. citizenship by a preponderance of credible evidence and is not entitled to such citizenship.