Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Claudia Lorena Marquez-Marquez, also known as Claudia MarquezMoreno, (Moreno), was born in Mexico on September 1, 1971, to unmarried Mexican citizens. In June 1973, in Mexico, her mother married Manuel Moreno (Manuel), a U.S. citizen. Manuel was born in the United States in 1933 and prior to 1971 had been physically present in the United States for not less than ten years, at least five of which were after 1947. In 1976, on Manuel’s application, Moreno was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. On December 16, 1980, Manuel adopted Moreno as his daughter in a New Mexico state court proceeding. There is no claim (nor any evidence) of any relationship between Manuel and Moreno’s mother (or between Manuel and Moreno) prior to 1973. In 1993, when Moreno was 21, her mother became a naturalized citizen of the United States. In August 1994, Moreno, pursuant to a plea agreement, pled guilty to, and was convicted of, possession with intent to distribute more than 50 kilograms of marihuana. she was sentenced for that offence by the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico to five years’ probation. In October 1999 New Mexico state court proceedings, Moreno, following a jury trial, was acquitted of both the murder and conspiracy charges, but was convicted of falsely imprisoning Lowery, and in January 2000 she was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. In May 2000, the New Mexico federal district court revoked Moreno’s probation for her 1994 drug conviction and sentenced her to serve 72 months in prison for that possession with intent to distribute offense. While she was serving her federal sentence, Moreno filed an application with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) seeking a determination that she is a U.S. citizen. The CIS denied Moreno’s application. The Department of Homeland Security served Moreno with a notice to appear alleging that she was an alien subject to removal based on each of her two prior convictions. The immigration judge concluded that: Moreno is an alien, not a citizen; she “has been convicted of two crimes, both of which are aggravated felonies; the first was a drug trafficking crime and the second was a crime of violence; she “has served more than five years imprisonment for the first felony” and “more than one year of imprisonment for the second felony”; “respondent . . . does not warrant a grant of relief as a matter of discretion under section 212(c)”; and “respondent is subject to removal as charged.” The opinion concludes by ordering that “All relief from removal sought herein is denied” and that Moreno be removed to Mexico “for the reasons indicated in her form I-862″ (the notice to appear). On April 20, 2005, the BIA affirmed the decision of the IJ. Moreno petitions for review. HOLDING:Denied. Moreno concedes that she was born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions, that neither of her biological parents was a U.S. citizen at the time of her birth, and that U.S. citizen Manuel, who adopted her in 1980, was not married to her mother when she was born in 1971. Nonetheless, she argues that she became “of” a U.S. citizen parent when Manuel adopted her in 1980. Moreno emphasizes Congress’ use of the preposition “of” in �301(g) rather than the preposition “to”, which Congress used elsewhere in the INA, for example �301(b). Moreno argues that Congress’s use of the preposition “of” means that the word “born” is modified only by where and not by to whom, such that Congress did not intend to require a blood relationship between the child and the U.S. citizen and that Congress also created no requirement that the child’s relationship with the U.S. citizen date from the child’s birth. The court disagrees. Section 301 does not address citizenship through adoption, and its text explicitly addresses only citizenship “at birth.” Moreno further argues that Manuel must be regarded as her biological father with the relationship between them hence necessarily subsisting since her birth because that is the law of New Mexico and is hence entitled to full faith and credit under Article IV, �1 of the U.S. Constitution and 28 U.S.C. �1738. The court rejects this argument. Because Moreno’s 1994 drug trafficking conviction is an offense covered in 8 U.S.C. �1227(a)(2)(B), and likewise because it is an offense covered by �1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), �1252(a)(2)(C) deprives the court of jurisdiction to review Moreno’s claim that the IJ and BIA erred in determining that in the exercise of discretion Moreno did not merit �212(c) relief, unless her challenge to that determination presents a constitutional claim or a question of law for purposes of �1252(a)(2)(D). While a challenge to a determination that an alien is statutorily ineligible for discretionary relief does present a question of law, a challenge to a determination that in the exercise of discretion favorable relief under �212(c) is not merited does not present a question of law or a constitutional claim, and hence such a challenge does not fall within �1252(a)(2)(D). OPINION:Garwood, J.; Garwood, Davis and Garza, J.J.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.