8 U.S.C. § 1432
Repealed. Pub. L. 106–395, title I, § 103(a), Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1632
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 309
cases (40 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: Johnson v. Whitehead
Johnson v. Whitehead (2011)
“He claims that he is a citizen under 8 U.S.C. § 1432 (a)(3). As explained below, that claim falters under the plain meaning of this constitutionally valid act of Congress.”
Monssef Cheneau v. Merrick Garland (2021)
“GARLAND SUMMARY** Immigration Remanding to the three-judge panel that previously denied Monssef Cheneau’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the en banc court held that the second clause of the derivative citizenship statute set out at former…”
Javier Ontoniel Bustamante-Barrera v. Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Attorney General (2006)
“Petitioner’s challenge to the BIA’s decision is based on a former version of 8 U.S.C. § 1432 (a), under which Petitioner claims to have automatically derived U.”
Kirk Washington Lewis v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General (2007)
“The IJ and BIA reasoned that Lewis did not derive citizenship from his father because his parents, who never married, never effected the “legal separation” that 8 U.S.C. § 1432 (a)(3) (repealed 2000) requires before a legitimated alien child may derive citizenship through a…”
Andre Camille Smart v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General (2005)
“In his petition, Smart argues that former section 321 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1432 (repealed 2000), the derivative citizenship statute applicable to foreign-born children of alien parents who become naturalized citizens, discriminates against…”
Catwell v. Attorney General of the United States (2010)
“Finally, Petitioner contends that former 8 U.S.C. § 1432 (a)(3) “unconstitutionally discriminates against [him] based upon legitimacy and gender.”
Nwozuzu v. Holder (2013)
“Here, the law in effect when seventeen-year old Nwozuzu applied for lawful permanent residence status after his parents were naturalized was former section 321(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the “INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1432 (a) (1994) (repealed 2000) (“section 321(a)”).”
Jhonson Barthelemy, AKA Johnson Barthelemy v. John D. Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney General (2003)
“As Barthelemy was born abroad to alien parents, derivative citizenship in this case is governed by Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 321(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1432 (a), now repealed. 1 In relevant part, § 321(a) provides: A child born outside of the United States of alien parents…”
Mark Anthony Herbert Jordon v. Attorney General of the United States (2005)
“§ 2241 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania challenging a final order to remove him on grounds that he is a non-removable, derivative United States citizen under the since-repealed 8 U.S.C. § 1432 (a). The District Court granted Jordon’s…”
Morgan v. Attorney General of the United States (2005)
“Under former section 321(a) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1432 (a), a child born outside the United States automatically acquires United States citizenship if, while the child is under the age of eighteen, the parent with legal custody of the child is…”
Duarte-Ceri v. Holder (2010)
“citizen by operation of former section 321(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the "INA"), 8 U.S.C. § 1432 (a) (1999), repealed by Pub.”
Odiri Nkofi Bagot v. John Ashcroft James Ziglar Kenneth Elwood (2005)
“8 U.S.C. § 1432 (a) (1999) (emphasis added), repealed by Child Citizenship Act of 2000 (“CCA”), § 103, Pub.”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a) — 3 cases
Espindola v. Barber (1957)
— 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a)(3) — 1 case
Mandoriao v. Gonzales (2006)
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.