Opinion
Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-006
2023-03-15
Frida Patricia MUJICA, "Plaintiff", v. Antony J. BLINKEN, Secretary of State, "Defendant".
Jaime M. Diez, Jones and Crane, Brownsville, TX, for Plaintiff. Christopher D. Pineda, United States Attorneys Office, Brownsville, TX, for Defendant.
Jaime M. Diez, Jones and Crane, Brownsville, TX, for Plaintiff. Christopher D. Pineda, United States Attorneys Office, Brownsville, TX, for Defendant. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Rolando Olvera, United States District Judge
Plaintiff sued Secretary of State Antony Blinken for declaratory relief granting her United States citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1503. Upon due consideration of the entire record, including the evidence, the testimony of witnesses, and the parties' arguments, the Court makes these findings of facts and conclusions of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a).
If any findings of fact constitute conclusions of law (and vice versa), they are adopted as such. See Tri-Tron Int'l v. Velto, 525 F.2d 432, 435 (9th Cir. 1975) (noting "a finding or conclusion" is evaluated "in its true light, regardless of the label" placed on it by a district court); see also Smith v. United States, 727 F. Supp.2d 533, 535 n. 1 (E.D. Tex. 2010); 9C Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2579 (2021 3d ed.).
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
Plaintiff's mother, Gloria Patricia Castaneda, ("Mother") and Plaintiff's father, Pedro Luis Mendoza Muzquiz ("Father") were Mexican citizens, who lived in Tamaulipas, Mexico ("Mexico") at the time of Plaintiff's birth. See Transcript Frida Patricia Mujica v. Antony Blinken et al. (No. 1:21-cv-006);. They had two children together, Plaintiff Frida Patricia Mujica and Pedro Luis Mendoza Castaneda ("Brother").
Neither party requested an official transcript. Unless otherwise noted, all facts derive from the unofficial transcript and evidence admitted at trial.
During her pregnancy Mother received prenatal care in Matamoros, Mexico ("Matamoros") with Doctor Octavio Longoria Cervantes ("Doctor"). During the pregnancy and at the time of Plaintiff's birth, Father and Mother were separated.
Plaintiff claims that the week Plaintiff was born Mother and Socorro Castaneda, Plaintiff's grandmother ("Grandmother"), were shopping in Brownsville, Texas ("Brownsville"). P. Exh. 15. Dkt. No. 7 at 2-3. Plaintiff alleges that while shopping, Mother started feeling sick and Aurora Trevino, her maternal aunt ("Aunt"), recommended that Mother see a midwife, Vicenta A. Vita ("Midwife"). P. Exh. 15. Dkt. No. 7 at 2-3. Plaintiff claims that upon arrival, Midwife advised Mother she was very close to giving birth and could not leave. P. Exh. 15. Plaintiff claims that soon after arriving to Midwife's home, Mother gave birth to Plaintiff June 24, 1991.
On July 5, 1991, Mother obtained a Mexican birth certificate stating Plaintiff was born in Matamoros June 11, 1991. D. Exh. 2. Mexican birth records provide official dates with the day first, then month, then year; for example, 11/06/91 is June 11, 1991. On July 9, 1991, Mother registered Plaintiff's Texas Birth Certificate; this exhibit states Plaintiff was born in Texas June 24, 1991. P. Exh. 1.
On September 13, 1992, Plaintiff was baptized in Matamoros. Plaintiff's baptismal certificate states that Plaintiff was born in Matamoros on June 11, 1991. D. Exh. 3.
Plaintiff was issued a valid United States passport in 2008. P. Exh. 5. On October 7, 2019, after her original passport had expired, Plaintiff re-applied for a passport. On February 12, 2020, Plaintiff asked about the status of her passport and was told that her case was pending. Plaintiff was then asked to have her Mother appear before the United States Consulate to answer questions about Plaintiff's birth. On January 28, 2021, Plaintiff's passport application was denied. P. Exh. 16.
Mother and Midwife are now deceased. D. Exh. 7, 10.
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Title 8 § 1503(a) of the United States Code applies in this cause of action, as the trial was a de novo determination of Plaintiff's citizenship. Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252, 256, 100 S.Ct. 540, 62 L.Ed.2d 461 (1980). Section 1503(a) allows any person within the United States denied a right or privilege as a national of the United States, based on non-nationality, to file a declaratory judgment action for a determination of United States citizenship. 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a).
Plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she is a United States citizen. De Vargas v. Brownell, 251 F.2d 869, 870-71 (5th Cir. 1958). To establish a fact by the preponderance of the evidence, Plaintiff must show that the existence of that fact is more likely than not. Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston, 459 U.S. 375, 390, 103 S.Ct. 683, 74 L.Ed.2d 548 (1983). As the finder of fact in a bench trial, the Court is charged with "[c]redibility determinations, the weighing of evidence and inferences drawn from the facts." Ritzer v. T.L. James Const., Inc., 149 F.3d 1173 (5th Cir. 1998).
The Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution does not require federal courts to give preclusive effect to a determination by the Texas Department of Health and Human Services that a person was born in Texas. Villafranca v. Blinken, No. 1:19-CV-173, 2022 WL 1210762 at 4, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74563 at 11-12 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2022).
When the plaintiff's birth is registered in both the United States and a foreign country, "[c]ourts have found that a delayed birth certificate is either entitled to far less evidentiary weight than a contemporaneously filed birth certificate or given no evidentiary weight." Sanchez v. Kerry, No. 4:11-CV-02084, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88152, 2014 WL 2932275, at 4 (S.D. Tex. June 27, 2014) (cleaned up). Where both birth certificates were created contemporaneously, the latter record may still be afforded less weight. See Candela-Rios v. Lynch, No. SA-16-MC-00220-JWP, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227825, 2017 WL 11046200, at 13 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2017). Villafranca v. Blinken, No. 1:19-CV-173, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74563 at 12, 2022 WL 1210762 at 4 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2022). A foreign birth certificate that contains accurate corroborating details, such as names and addresses, holds greater credibility. Id. at 4, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74563 at 11.
The Court finds Plaintiff's Texas birth certificate does not determine that Plaintiff was born in the United States. Plaintiff's Mexican birth certificate was recorded before the Texas birth record. Plaintiff's Mexican birth certificate correctly states Plaintiff's name, correctly states Plaintiff's parents' and grandparents' information, has a fingerprint of Plaintiff, and was witnessed by two witnesses, one being Raymundo Castaneda Trevino, Plaintiff's uncle ("Uncle"). P. Exh. 2. On the other hand the Texas birth certificate, which was witnessed by Midwife, incorrectly states that Plaintiff's name is 'Irida' instead of her designated name 'Frida'. P. Exh. 1. The Texas birth certificate also contains errors about family information, particularly both Mother and Father's dates of birth are incorrect. P. Exh. 1. D. Exh. 7.
The Court notes Plaintiff's Brother also has a Texas birth certificate and a Mexican birth certificate with contradicting dates of birth and dates of registration. D. Exh. 4-5. Brother has a Mexican birth certificate registered in Mexico October 26, 1987, that states his date of birth is October 10, 1987. D. Exh. 4. Brother also has a Texas birth certificate registered November 16, 1987, that states brother's date of birth was November 12, 1987. D. Exh. 5. Brother's birth being registered in Mexico a month before his date of birth in Texas shows a pattern and casts doubt on the validity of Plaintiff's delayed Texas birth certificate. For these reasons the Court finds that Plaintiff's Texas birth certificate is not reliable proof that Plaintiff was born in Texas.
Plaintiff and Father were the testifying witnesses for Plaintiff. The Court may consider testimonial evidence in a § 1503 proceeding. See, e.g., Patel v. Rice, 403 F. Supp. 2d 560, 565-66 (N.D. Tex. 2005). Testifying witnesses without personal knowledge about the subject of their testimony are generally less reliable than those with personal knowledge. See Cisneros Gonzalez v. Clinton, et al., No. 1:12-cv-88, Docket No. 31 at 3-6 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2013).
Father testified that he did not find out about Plaintiff's birth until Plaintiff was four months old. Father's testimony contradicts Plaintiff's amended complaint which states that Father was present during Plaintiff's birth. Dkt. No 7 at 2. Father stated that Plaintiff's maternal Grandmother made statements to him about Plaintiff being born in Brownsville and her date of birth. Father admitted that Grandmother was the only person to ever tell him Plaintiff was born in Brownsville, and Grandmother only told him once. Father admitted he had no direct personal knowledge where Plaintiff was born, nor did he speak with Plaintiff's mother about Plaintiff's place or date of birth.
Although Father's statements were credible enough to suggest Grandmother told Father that Plaintiff was born in the United States, without personal knowledge of Plaintiff's birth, Father's testimony was ultimately not enough for Plaintiff to satisfy her burden. Further, Grandmother, who was the only person to discuss Plaintiff's place and date of birth with Father, never discussed these issues with Plaintiff. Plaintiff testified that her Grandmother never talked to her about her place and date of birth.
Given the conflicting documentation and testimony presented, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff was born in the United States or Mexico. Thus, Plaintiff did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she was born in the United States and therefore failed to establish she is a United States citizen. A final judgment will be set forth in a separate document.