Mark Anthony Herbert Jordon v. Attorney General of the United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that a court may exercise hypothetical jurisdiction to reach the merits of a claim when the potential jurisdictional impediments do not raise Article III concerns
• noting that in cases involving statutory jurisdiction, as opposed to Article III jurisdiction, federal courts may consider the merits of the claims before addressing jurisdictional issues
• holding, in part, that “a child seeking to establish derivative citizenship under § 1432(a) must prove . . . ‘that his [parent] was naturalized after a legal separation from his [other parent]” (alteration in original
• explaining that a court may assume hypothetical jurisdiction of a “statutory provenance”
• noting that “a child seeking to establish derivative citizenship under § 1432(a) must prove,” inter alia, “that his [parent] was naturalized after a legal separation from his [other parent]” (quoting Bagot v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 252, 257 (3d Cir. 2005))
• noting the question of exhaustion under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d), although jurisdictional, is statutory in nature, and thus need not always be resolved

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).