Opinion ID: 2744624
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Fifth Circuit

Text: We previously addressed this statute, albeit in a limited manner, in United States v. Juarez, 672 F.3d 381 (5th Cir. 2012). The defendant claimed that his counsel failed to inform him that he could raise a derivative citizenship defense. Id. at 385. The defendant claimed that, although he lacked lawful permanent resident status, he resided permanently in the United States before his eighteenth birthday. Id. at 387. Although we had not interpreted § 1432 (and declined to do so in that case), we noted that the defendant’s claim was plausible based on the state of the law at the time of the defendant’s arrest. Id. We based this proposition on decisions by the Second and Ninth Circuit as well as secondary sources. Id. (citing Ashton, 431 F.3d at 95; Diaz-Guerrero, 132 F. App’x at 739; Ira J. Kurzban, Immigration Law Sourcebook 1302 (11th ed. 2008–09)). Specifically, we reasoned that “Kurzban’s interpretation of the statute reasonably suggests that Juarez may have derived citizenship as he would only need to show actual residence.” Id.