Ricardo Manlapaz Lacap v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 138 F.3d 518 (3rd Cir. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Ricardo Manlapaz Lacap v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 138 F.3d 518 (3rd Cir. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
22 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Andrew U.D. Straw v. United States and The Republic of the Philippines (med, 2025-10-23)
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Andrew U.D. Straw v. United States and The Republic of the Philippines
D. Me. · 2025 · confidence medium
See Valmonte v. Immigr. and Naturalization Serv., 136 F.3d 914 (2d Cir. 1998) (rejecting claim that persons born in the Philippines during its status as a United States territory gave rise to rights of citizenship); Lacap v. Immigr. and Naturalization Serv., 138 F.3d 518, 519 (3d Cir. 1998) (same); Rabang v. Immigr. and Naturalization Serv., 35 F.3d 1449, 1454 (9th Cir. 1994) (same).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Robinson v. Moynihan
E.D. Va. · 2021 · confidence medium
Inst., 138 F.3d 518, 521 (4th Cir. 1998). 7 Much of the complaint’s language appears to originate from the website “Understand Contract Law and You Win.” Jean Keating, Counterclaims to Debt Collection, Understand Contract Law and You Win, http://understandcontractlawandyouwin.com/jean-keating/ (last visited May 26, 2021). § The Sovereign Citizen Movement: Common Identifiers and Examples, Anti-Defamation League, https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf/combating-hate/Sovereign- Other parts of this section of the complaint are simply false, not conspiratorial.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Entines v. United States of America
D.D.C. · 2016 · confidence medium
See Licudine, 603 F.Supp.2d at 134 (“[B]irth in the Philippines during its territorial period does not constitute birth in the United States for purposes of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”); see also Nolos v. Holder, 611 F.3d 279, 284 (5th Cir.2010) (holding that persons born in the Philippines between 1899 and 1946 did not become U.S. citizens at birth); Lacap v. I.N.S., 138 F.3d 518, 519 (3d Cir.1998) (per curiam) (same); Valmonte v. I.N.S., 136 F.3d 914, 920 (2d Cir.1998) (same); Rabang v. I.N.S., 35 F.3d 1449 , 1454 (9th Cir.1994) (same).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jermaine Thomas v. Loretta Lynch
5th Cir. · 2015 · confidence medium
For guidance, we looked to the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits, which had previously “held that birth in the Philippines at a time when the country was a territory of the United States does not constitute birth ‘in the United States’ under the Citizenship Clause, and thus did not give rise to United States citizenship.” Id. (citing La-cap v. INS, 138 F.3d 518, 518-19 (3d Cir.1998); Valmonte v. INS, 136 F.3d 914, 915-21 (2d Cir.1998); Rabang v. INS, 35 F.3d 1449, 1450-54 (9th Cir.1994)). 2 Underlying those circuits’ conclusion was the recognition that “the Citizenship Clause of the…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Peter Eche v. Eric Holder, Jr.
9th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
See Valmonte v. I.N.S., 136 F.3d 914, 920-21 (2d Cir.1998); Lacap v. I.N.S., 138 F.3d 518, 519 (3d Cir.1998); Licudine v. Winter, 603 F.Supp.2d 129, 134 (D.D.C.2009).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) NOLOS v. Holder
5th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
Lacap v. INS, 138 F.3d 518, 518-19 (3d Cir.1998); Valmonte v. INS, 136 F.3d 914, 915-21 (2d Cir.1998); Rabang v. INS, 35 F.3d 1449, 1450-54 (9th Cir.1994). 2 The courts of appeals explained that the term “United States” as it is used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not, without more, include “United States territories simply because the territories [were] ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ or ‘within the dominion’ of the United States.” Id. at 1453 & n. 8; see also Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 920 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Licudine v. Winter (2×) also: Cited "see"
D.D.C. · 2009 · confidence medium
See Valmonte v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 136 F.3d 914, 920 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1024 , 119 S.Ct. 556 , 142 L.Ed.2d 463 (1998); Lacap, 138 F.3d at 519 (adopting the “result and reasoning of the court in Rabang ” and noting the Second Circuit’s ruling in Valmonte); Ra-bang, 35 F.3d at 1452.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Licudine v. Winter (2×) also: Cited "see"
D.D.C. · 2009 · confidence medium
See Valmonte v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 136 F.3d 914, 920 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1024 (1998); Lacap, 138 F.3d at 519 (adopting the “result and reasoning of the court in Rabang” and noting the Second Circuit’s ruling in Valmonte); Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452.
discussed Cited "see" 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2242, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2425 Horace Gozon Friend v. Janet Reno, Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice Immigration and Naturalization Service, Horace Gozon Friend v. Janet Reno, Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice Immigration and Naturalization Service
9th Cir. · 1999 · signal: accord · confidence high
This Court has recently confirmed that "birth in the Philippines during the territorial period does not constitute birth 'in the United States' under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and thus does not give rise to United States citizenship." Rabang v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 35 F.3d 1449 , 1452 (9th Cir.1994); accord Lacap v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 138 F.3d 518, 519 (3d Cir.1998) (per curiam); Valmonte v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 136 F.3d 914, 921 (2d Cir.1998).
discussed Cited "see" Friend v. Reno
9th Cir. · 1999 · signal: accord · confidence high
This Court has recently confirmed that “birth in the Philippines during the territorial peri od does not constitute birth ‘in the United States’ under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and thus does not give rise to United States citizenship.” Rabang v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 35 F.3d 1449 , 1452 (9th Cir.1994); accord Lacap v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 138 F.3d 518, 519 (3d Cir.1998) (per curiam); Valmonte v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 136 F.3d 914, 921 (2d Cir.1998).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ricardo Manlapaz LACAP, Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
97-3322.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Mar 12, 1998.
138 F.3d 518
Elly V. Pamatong, New York City, for Petitioner., Frank W. Hunger, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. McConnell, Asst. Director, Stephen W. Funk, Sr., Litigation Counsel, Michael P. Lindemann, Vernon B. Miles, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, U.S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Greenberg, Scirica, Aldisert.
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.,

Petitioner Ricardo Manlapaz Lacap was born on January 23, 1951, in the Philippines, where he resided until 1991 when he illegally entered the United States. His parents, Fausto B. Lacap and Maria Manlapaz, were born in the Philippines during the time it was a- territorial possession of the United States between December 10, 1898, and July 4, 1946.

In deportation ' proceedings instituted against Lacap, he' conceded that he was a citizen of the Philippines and was subject to deportation. He nevertheless contended that he should be granted asylum and the with[*519] holding of deportation under sections 208(a) and 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) and 1253(h). The immigration Judge denied La-cap’s request on September 25,1995, and, on Lacap’s appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals sustained that result on May 14, 1997.

Laeap then filed a timely petition for review with this court on June 12,1997. In the proceedings before this court, Laeap does not challenge the administrative denial of his applications for asylum and the withholding of deportation. Rather,- he explains that the “only issue in this case is: whether [his] parents were bom in the ‘United States’ within the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Br. at 43. He makes an intricate argument' contending that they were bom in the United States and thus were citizens of the United States. Accordingly, he contends that he is a citizen of the United States by birth and cannot be deported.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Rabang v. INS, 35 F.3d 1449, 1454 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1130, 115 S.Ct. 2554, 132 L.Ed.2d 809 (1995), examined the issue raised in these proceedings and concluded that “Supreme Court precedent compels a conclusion that persons bom in the Philippines during the territorial period were not ‘bom ... in the United States,’ within the meaning of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and are thus not entitled to citizenship by birth.” We agree with the result and reasoning of the court in Rabcmg and note that the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently has followed Ra-bang as well. See Valmonte v. INS, 1998 WL 54575 (2d Cir. Feb. 11, 1998). Consequently, it follows that Laeap is not entitled to relief in these proceedings.

In view of the aforesaid, we will deny the petition for review of the decision and order of May 14,1997, of the Board of Immigration Appeals.