Background
Manuel Salvador Guerra Vasquez and his nephew, Jorge Antonio Guerra Quezada, were born in Mexico and claimed U.S. citizenship through Cruz Rodriguez de Guerra, their respective grandmother and great-grandmother. Cruz was born in Kansas in 1924 but allegedly was denied entry to the United States in 1940 after border officers told her she had abandoned her residence. The appellants argued that her resulting absence should count as “constructive presence” in the United States, allowing citizenship to pass through later generations.
Both men previously faced immigration consequences. Guerra Vasquez, formerly a lawful permanent resident, received a voluntary-departure order, later pleaded guilty to improper entry by an alien, and subsequently reentered the country. Guerra Quezada was removed after a felony conviction, later reentered after inspection, and received a certificate of citizenship in 2021 that the government subsequently began proceedings to cancel. They brought claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, Federal Tort Claims Act, Bivens, and other authorities, seeking damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and, for Guerra Vasquez, habeas relief. The district court dismissed all claims.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit rejected the constructive-presence doctrine in the citizenship-transmission context. The governing statutes required specified periods of actual residence or physical presence in the United States before citizenship could be transmitted to a child born abroad. Because Congress had enacted particular exceptions but none covering an allegedly wrongful denial of entry, the court declined to create a judicial exception. Neither appellant therefore established U.S. citizenship through the asserted family line.
The court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) barred jurisdiction over the damages claims arising from decisions to commence immigration proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders; other arguments concerning that provision were forfeited through inadequate briefing. It also found no jurisdiction over the citizenship-declaration claims because administrative remedies had not been exhausted, or over the APA claims because no final agency action or other reviewable action had been identified. Guerra Vasquez’s Section 2255 claim was untimely and independently failed because he was no longer “in custody,” while the due-process claims were forfeited for inadequate briefing.
The panel affirmed Guerra Quezada’s dismissal without prejudice. It affirmed dismissal of Guerra Vasquez’s action but modified the judgment to specify that the dismissal was without prejudice because it rested on lack of jurisdiction. The court also identified fabricated or inaccurate quotations, erroneous case attributions, and missing record citations in counsel’s briefs; it imposed no discipline but warned counsel to comply with appellate briefing rules.
Key Takeaways
- The Fifth Circuit will not treat an ancestor’s allegedly involuntary absence from the United States as constructive physical presence for transmitting citizenship.
- Citizenship-declaration and APA claims cannot proceed without the required administrative exhaustion and final agency action, respectively.
- Jurisdictional dismissals must be without prejudice, and materially inaccurate authorities or unsupported factual assertions in appellate briefs may expose counsel to discipline.
Why It Matters
The decision forecloses constructive presence as a means of satisfying statutory residence or physical-presence requirements for citizenship by descent in the Fifth Circuit. Claimants must meet the conditions Congress enacted rather than rely on an equitable exception based on government conduct that allegedly prevented an ancestor from entering the country.
The opinion also underscores procedural barriers in citizenship and removal-related litigation: damages claims may fall within Section 1252(g), declaratory claims require administrative exhaustion, and APA review generally requires final agency action. Its warning to counsel highlights the professional consequences of inaccurate quotations, misattributed authorities, and deficient record citations.