Id. As part of Plaintiff’s LPR application, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (now incorporated into United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)) determined Plaintiff to be his father’s “child” in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1101(b)(1), which includes the legitimation provision decided in Matter of Clahar, 18 I. & N. Dec. 1 (BIA 1981).1 Id. Plaintiff derived U.S. citizenship on September 17, 2002 through his father’s naturalization on that same day.

Here, when reviewing plaintiff’s underlying immigration appeal, the Second Circuit “remain[ed] unsure as to the precise definition the BIA has adopted for determining whether a ‘child’ has been ‘legitimated’ under the law of a particular jurisdiction for purposes of 37 8 U.S.C. § 1101(c)(1).” Watson v. Holder, 643 F.3d 367, 370 (2d Cir. 2011) (discussing BIA’s application of Matter of Clahar, 18 I. & N. Dec. 1 (BIA 1981) rather than Matter of Hines, 24 I. & N. Dec. 544 (BIA 2008)). Upon remand, the BIA held that Matter of Hines is limited to derivation claims under the former Section 320(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1431(a).