Norberto Vega-Alvarado, a.k.a. Norberto Vega, a.k.a. Norberto Alvarado v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NORBERTO VEGA-ALVARADO, a.k.a.
Norberto Vega, a.k.a. Norberto Alvarado,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73551
Agency No. A013-086-266
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted March 12, 2012
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, D.W. NELSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Vega-Alvarado petitions for review of a decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his motion to
terminate removal. Because we determined there to be a genuine issue of material
fact about Vega-Alvarado’s nationality, the proceeding was transferred to the
FILED
APR 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
district court for a new hearing and decision on Vega-Alvarado’s claim of United
States nationality. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5)(B). Vega-Alvarado seeks review of
the district court’s finding that he failed to prove his claim to United States
citizenship. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition
for review.
The issue before the district court was whether Vega-Alvarado established
by preponderance of the evidence that his father, Agustin Vega (Agustin), was
physically present in the United States for at least ten years before
Vega-Alvarado’s birth in 1959, five of which were after Agustin turned fourteen in
1935. See Runnett v. Shultz, 901 F.2d 782, 783 (9th Cir. 1990) (“The applicable
law for transmitting citizenship to a child born abroad when one parent is a U.S.
citizen is the statute that was in effect at the time of the child’s birth”);
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, ch. 477, Title III, ch. 1, § 301, 66 Stat.
235, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(7) (repealed 1966).
Reviewing the district court’s credibility determinations for clear error,
Papakosmas v. Papakosmas, 483 F.3d 617, 623 (9th Cir. 2007), we hold that the
district court did not clearly err in finding testimony by Maria Rosario Carrera,
Jovita Banda Bermejo, Eliseo Vega, and Esperanza Lopez Alvarado to be biased or
not credible. The district court separately analyzed the testimony of each witness

-- 2 of 3 --

3
and determined it to be unreliable in light of the factual deficiencies combined with
the familial relationships. This is consistent with our circuit precedent. See Cuellar
v. Joyce, 596 F.3d 505, 511 (9th Cir. 2010) (probative value of sister’s report was
“limited given the sister’s likely bias,” along with other factors).
In light of the district court’s credibility determinations and lack of
documentary evidence to support Vega-Alvarado’s claim, we hold that the district
court did not clearly err in finding that Vega-Alvarado failed to prove that his
father was present in the United States for the requisite time. See Wilson v. United
States, 645 F.2d 728, 731 (9th Cir. 1981) (district court’s determination that a party
did not carry his burden to prove a fact is reviewed for clear error). Because our
holding would be the same even if the district court had not excluded as hearsay
the testimony regarding Agustin’s statements about time spent working in the
United States and Agustin’s alleged reputation in the community for working in
the United States, we need not reach the propriety of the district court’s decision
not to admit the testimony under Federal Rules of Evidence 803(19), 804(b)(4)(A),
and 807.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --