U.S. used nonexistent Mexican law to deny citizenship

For 35 years, federal government has wrongfully denied citizenship based on a fabricated family law provision of the Mexican Constitution.

Storified by AJAMStream· Thu, Oct 17 2013 14:26:22

Equalvoiceforfamilies





Born to an American father and a Mexican mother, Saldana was deported four times, detained for two years, and repeatedly separated from his family in South Texas. Last month the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals The government's use of this fictitious law extends back to 1978. Since immigration cases are not open to the public, no one can determine how many times "Article 314" has been cited.Born to an American father and a Mexican mother, Saldana was deported four times, detained for two years, and repeatedly separated from his family in South Texas. Last month the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Saldana's case.

In both Saldana’s case and other cases involving similar situations, DHS officers and the Administrative Appeals Office (“AAO”) within DHS have relied on provisions of the Mexican Constitution that either never existed or do not say what DHS claims they say.ca5.uscourts.gov

In its oral arguments to the court, the government acknowledged that "Article 314" did not exist and said that the error was due to a "typo." In its decision, the court criticized the government's explanation for the 35 years of erroneous use of Mexican law.

Though the government attempted to dismiss this error as a mere “typo,” we cannot agree. It is unclear what legal authority the BIA actually relied on in Reyes. It may have been a provision of the applicable civil code, as opposed to the Constitution of Mexico. The substance of the law may or may not have been correct in Reyes, but the BIA’s mistake in citing a non-existent constitutional provision, perpetuated and uncorrected by DHS in subsequent years, prevented the agency from making the correct inquiries or possibly from applying the correct law in subsequent cases. That error has wound its way through multiple agency decisions in immigration matters, which are significant to the impacted individuals.ca5.uscourts.gov

Online reaction to the Saldana case was one of shock. Some expressed disbelief that DHS officials never verified the Mexican law they were citing, while others suggested that the misapplication was purposeful.

"What this looks like is nobody's ever checked it out. And it is shocking," said Matthew Hoppock, a Kansas City attorney who specializes in federal appeals related to immigration issuesbrownsvilleherald.com

Our government's been lying to the courts about this since at least 1978 when the Immigration and Naturalization Service first invented Article 314 of the Mexican Constitution as a convenient way to deny citizenship to and thus deport American citizens.techdirt.com

Wow. I'm in disbelief right now. At best, at least it'a being exposed now. Just left wondering how many families have been torn apart? How many people were wrongfully denied citizenship?facebook.com





Leopold noted that "legitimization cases are not common, but they do exist." He also said that such an error would likely not have been discovered without the long appeals process that Saldana undertook since DHS officials "didn't open the book" on the relevant Mexican law.



"Most people," Leopold added, "don't have the resources, financial or pro-bono, for such an appeals process." The Stream spoke to David Leopold , former president of the the American Immigration Lawyers Association , about the Saldana case. Leopold said that given the length of time the "phantom statute" was in use, "it's hard to imagine that there isn't a whole class of people affected by this."Leopold noted that "legitimization cases are not common, but they do exist." He also said that such an error would likely not have been discovered without the long appeals process that Saldana undertook since DHS officials "didn't open the book" on the relevant Mexican law."Most people," Leopold added, "don't have the resources, financial or pro-bono, for such an appeals process."

The full decision from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals can be read here: