Nwozuzu v. Holder

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that Ashton “strongly suggested” statute did not require. LPR status
• stating that court begins with language of statute and, if “statutory terms are unambiguous,” construes statute according to plain meaning of its terms
• holding that petitioner derived citizenship under Section 1432(a) because his application to adjust status, filed after his parents naturalized and while he was still 17, was “an objective and official manifestation of his intent to reside permanently in the United States.”
• recognizing “that the alien applicant bear the burden of establishing his eligibility for citizenship”
• discussing \Congress's intent to preserve the family unit and to keep families intact\ under the previous version of the derivative citizenship provision at issue in this case
• evaluating the phrase “begins to reside permanently” 24 in the context of the requirements for derivative citizenship

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).