Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

jurisdictionappealfelonyvisacitizenshipdeportation
jurisdictionappealhearingfelonyvisacitizenshipdeportationnaturalization

Related Cases

Bamidele v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Suhail Najim Abdullah Al Shimari v. CACI Premier
View Case »
Merino-Hernandez; U.S. v.
View Case »
Garcia v. Stewart
View Case »
Martinez-Zelaya v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Drakes v. Ashcroft

Facts

Petitioner Cathyann Martina Drakes, born in Trinidad in 1963, entered the U.S. on an immigrant visa at age six. She was raised by her mother, who became a naturalized U.S. citizen when Drakes was nine. In 1992, Drakes was convicted of first degree manslaughter and was later served notice of deportation in 1998 due to her aggravated felony status. Drakes argued that she had obtained derivative citizenship through her mother, but the Immigration Judge denied this claim based on the legal separation requirement that was in effect at the time.

Petitioner Cathyann Martina Drakes, born in Trinidad in 1963, entered the U.S. on an immigrant visa at age six. She was raised by her mother, who became a naturalized U.S. citizen when Drakes was nine. In 1992, Drakes was convicted in New York State court of first degree manslaughter. In 1998, the INS served notice that she was deportable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (aggravated felony deportation). At her deportation hearing, in March 2000, Drakes argued that she had obtained derivative citizenship through her mother and was not subject to removal.

Issue

The main legal issue was whether the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 (CCA) operates retrospectively to confer citizenship on individuals who would have qualified under its provisions as children but did not meet the requirements in effect when they were minors.

The question before us is whether the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 ('CCA'), which liberalizes the Immigration and Nationality Act 's conditions for the automatic derivative naturalization of alien children of United States-born or naturalized parents, operates retrospectively.

Rule

The CCA's derivative citizenship provision applies only to children who, as of the effective date of the CCA, (1) are under eighteen years of age, (2) have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, and (3) reside in the U.S. pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence, in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent.

The CCA's derivative citizenship provision applies only to children who, as of the effective date of the CCA , see CCA 104 , (1) are under eighteen years of age, (2) have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, and (3) reside in the U.S., pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence, in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent.

Analysis

The court concluded that the CCA did not confer citizenship retrospectively. It noted that the CCA's provisions apply only to children who meet specific criteria as of the effective date of the law. Since Drakes did not meet these criteria, the court found that it lacked jurisdiction over her appeal due to her status as an aggravated felon.

We conclude that Congress's enactment of the CCA did not confer citizenship on Drakes. The CCA's derivative citizenship provision applies only to children who, as of the effective date of the CCA , see CCA 104 , (1) are under eighteen years of age, (2) have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, and (3) reside in the U.S., pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence, in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent.

Conclusion

The petition for review was denied, and the appeal was dismissed.

Because Petitioner remains an alien and because her status as an aggravated felon is not contested, we lack jurisdiction over her appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court found that the CCA did not confer citizenship retrospectively, and thus lacked jurisdiction over Drakes' appeal.

The government prevailed in the case because the court found that the CCA did not confer citizenship retrospectively, and thus lacked jurisdiction over Drakes' appeal.

You must be