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

precedentappealasylumcitizenshipdeportation
precedentappealasylumcitizenshipdeportation

Related Cases

Lopez-Galarza v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Sahi v. Gonzales
View Case »
Knoetze v. Department of State
View Case »
Yi Ni v. Holder
View Case »
Qureshi v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Lacap v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Facts

Petitioner Ricardo Manlapaz Lacap was born on January 23, 1951, in the Philippines, where he resided until 1991 when he illegally entered the United States. His parents, Fausto B. Lacap and Maria Manlapaz, were born in the Philippines during the time it was a territorial possession of the United States between December 10, 1898, and July 4, 1946. In deportation proceedings instituted against Lacap, he conceded that he was a citizen of the Philippines and was subject to deportation. He nevertheless contended that he should be granted asylum and the withholding of deportation under sections 208(a) and 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), 8 U.S.C. 1158(a) and 1253(h).

Petitioner Ricardo Manlapaz Lacap was born on January 23, 1951, in the Philippines, where he resided until 1991 when he illegally entered the United States. His parents, Fausto B. Lacap and Maria Manlapaz, were born in the Philippines during the time it was a territorial possession of the United States between December 10, 1898, and July 4, 1946. In deportation proceedings instituted against Lacap, he conceded that he was a citizen of the Philippines and was subject to deportation. He nevertheless contended that he should be granted asylum and the withholding of deportation under sections 208(a) and 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), 8 U.S.C. 1158(a) and 1253(h).

Issue

The only issue in this case is: whether [his] parents were born in the 'United States' within the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The only issue in this case is: whether [his] parents were born in the 'United States' within the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Rule

Supreme Court precedent compels a conclusion that persons born in the Philippines during the territorial period were not 'born . . . in the United States,' within the meaning of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and are thus not entitled to citizenship by birth.

Supreme Court precedent compels a conclusion that persons born in the Philippines during the territorial period were not 'born . . . in the United States,' within the meaning of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and are thus not entitled to citizenship by birth.

Analysis

The court agreed with the result and reasoning of the court in Rabang v. INS, which concluded that individuals born in the Philippines during the territorial period do not qualify as 'born . . . in the United States' under the Citizenship Clause. Therefore, since Lacap's parents were born during this period, they were not considered U.S. citizens, and consequently, Lacap could not claim citizenship by birth.

The court agreed with the result and reasoning of the court in Rabang v. INS, which concluded that individuals born in the Philippines during the territorial period do not qualify as 'born . . . in the United States' under the Citizenship Clause.

Conclusion

The court denied petitioner illegal alien's request for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision sustaining the immigration judge's decision denying petitioner's request for asylum and withholding of deportation.

The court denied petitioner illegal alien's request for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision sustaining the immigration judge's decision denying petitioner's request for asylum and withholding of deportation.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision, affirming that Lacap was not a U.S. citizen and thus not entitled to the relief he sought.

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision, affirming that Lacap was not a U.S. citizen and thus not entitled to the relief he sought.

You must be