Opinion ID: 1037059
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Preservation of the Family Unit

Text: Our decision not to read a lawful permanent resident requirement into the second clause of section 321(a)(5) is consistent with the prevailing purpose of the INA: [The INA] implements the underlying intention of our immigration laws regarding the preservation of the family unit. An American citizen -26- will have the right to bring his alien spouse (wife or husband) as a nonquota immigrant. Similarly, he will be able to bring his alien minor child as a nonquota immigrant. H.R. Rep. No. 82-1365, reprinted in 1952 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 1680. Clearly, Congress did not intend for the children of U.S. citizens to be strictly bound by all the formal requirements of the immigration laws applicable to adults. See, e.g., INS v. Errico, 385 U.S. 214, 220 (1966) (discussing 1957 amendments to the INA and explaining that Congress felt that, in many circumstances, it was more important to unite families and preserve family ties than it was to enforce strictly various restrictions in the immigrations laws). Moreover, this Court in Duarte-Ceri has specifically recognized that the derivative citizenship statute implements the underlying intention of our immigration laws regarding the preservation of the family unit. It is consistent with Congress's remedial purposes, therefore, to interpret the statute's ambiguity with leniency, and we should interpret the statute here in a manner that will keep families intact. -27- 630 F.3d at 89-90 (citations omitted) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 82-1365, at 24, reprinted in 1952 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 1680). This reasoning applies with equal force here. We recognize that the alien applicant bears the burden of establishing his eligibility for citizenship and , when we interpret naturalization statutes, doubts should be resolved in favor of the United States and against the claimant. Berenyi v. Dist. Dir., INS, 385 U.S. 630, 637 (1967) (quotation marks omitted). Nevertheless, when possible, we should also seek to preserve[] rather than extinguish[] citizenship, Duarte-Ceri, 630 F.3d at 88, and be mindful of the underlying intention of our immigration laws regarding the preservation of the family unit, H.R. Rep. No. 82-1365 (1952), reprinted in 1952 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1653, 1680. Accordingly, while we conclude that the plain language compels our reading of the statute, we would favor this reading in any event because it furthers the intent of Congress to keep families intact where possible. -28-