Mondaca-Vega v. Holder, No. 03-71369 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePetitioner challenged the district court's ruling that he was not a United States citizen pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(5). The court held that Lim v. Mitchell, which required de novo review, was no longer good law, and the court must review the district court's finding of fact for clear error. The court concluded that the district court did not err in placing the burden on petitioner to prove his citizenship by a preponderance of the evidence and then shifting the burden of proof to the government, nor did it err in selecting the "clear and convincing" formulation when assigning the level of proof that the government had to meet. In view of the many undisputed facts and the additional non-erroneous subordinate findings, the court held that the district court's key finding, that petitioner is Salvador Mondaca-Vega, was not clearly erroneous under the "clear and convincing" standard of proof. Accordingly, the court denied the petition.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel denied Salvador Mondaca-Vega’s petition for review of the district court’s findings, following a bench trial pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(5) (now 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5)), that he is not a United States citizen. The panel held that the proper standard of review of the district court’s findings of fact on petitioner’s nationality claim is for clear error. The panel held that Lim v. Mitchell, 431 F.2d 197 (9th Cir. 1970), which would require de novo review, has been effectively overruled because it relied on cases that the Supreme Court subsequently repudiated. The panel also held that the district court correctly placed the burden on petitioner to prove his citizenship by a preponderance of the evidence, and then properly shifted the ultimate burden of proof to the government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was removable. The panel held that the district court’s key finding, that petitioner is Salvador Mondaca-Vega, who was born in Mexico and who never became a United States citizen, is not clearly erroneous under the “clear and convincing” standard of proof. Dissenting, Judge Pregerson would find that petitioner is an American citizen and would grant the petition. Judge Pregerson wrote that the majority erred in holding that Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273 (1982) and Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) impliedly overruled the long line of Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit cases holding that this court is required to independently review citizenship cases. Judge Pregerson would find that the government did not meet its burden to prove by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that petitioner is not an American citizen.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on November 6, 2013.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.