The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied a Trinidad and Tobago man’s claim to US citizenship on Tuesday and declined to halt his deportation even though the man held a wrongfully issued US citizenship certificate for 22 years. Since 1991, Lall possessed a Certificate of Citizenship issued by Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS); however, the agency later determined that he had not acquired citizenship. It was not until 2012, while Lall was serving a sentence for a drug conviction, that US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) notified him of their decision to cancel his certificate.
Lall was convicted of conspiracy to import five kilograms or more of cocaine following an investigation at JFK airport in New York City. Subsequently, in 2020, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) interviewed Lall and determined he was a “removable alien with no proper claim to US citizenship” due to his conviction. In 2021, an immigration court ordered his removal to Trinidad and Tobago, and he was deported in January of that year.
Lall, born in Trinidad and Tobago, entered the US after being adopted by naturalized US citizens from Trinidad and Tobago. At 17, he applied for derivative citizenship under the former §321 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which allows children to acquire citizenship when their parents naturalize. USCIS determined that Lall did not qualify since he did not reside in the US when his parents naturalized. Lall also claimed eligibility under INA §322, which was refuted since he’d turned 18 before swearing the Oath of Allegiance.
The Third Circuit upheld these findings, stating that a Certificate of Citizenship is simply proof of citizenship and does not confer status on its own. The court noted citizenship is granted only when statutory requirements are met, and Lall did not meet these. It criticized USCIS for not promptly notifying Lall about the cancellation of his certificate, contributing to the confusion. Despite acknowledging the bureaucratic failings, the court emphasized it could not bypass statutory requirements to confer citizenship, aligning with the US Supreme Court’s decision in I.N.S. v. Pangilinan.
Your detailed coverage of this incident highlights the complexities of immigration law and the importance of prompt administrative actions, ensuring that legal professionals remain acutely aware of the ramifications of procedural delays.
More on this story can be found on JURIST – News.