Bustamante-Barrera v. Gonzales

1 Citing brief

  1. Garcia v. Johnson et al

    MOTION to Dismiss 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted

    Filed December 19, 2014

    B. Any Determinations By The State Of Texas Are Separate And Distinct And Do Not Form A Basis For An 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a) Cause of Action In an 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a) cause of action, “[t]he determination of whether [Plaintiff] was born in Texas [in such a cause of action] is determined by federal law; it is not dependent on the law of any particular state. Even assuming that the State of Texas determined that [Plaintiff] was born in Texas, neither the State Department nor a federal court would be bound to follow that decision in determining [Plaintiff’s] entitlement to a United States [right or privilege]. The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require the decision of the Texas Department of Health to be given preclusive effect in [ § 1503(a)] proceedings.” Sanchez v. Clinton, No. 4:11-cv-2084, 2012 WL 208565 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2012), citing Bustamante-Barrera v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 338, 400-01 (5th Cir. 2006) (emphasis added). Indeed, in both Sanchez and Garcia, the cases concluded with the plaintiffs having Texas Delayed Certificates of Birth considered valid by a Texas Hearing Officer, while concurrently, having Federal District Court’s finding that neither established United States nationality by a preponderance of the evidence.