THE RISK OF STATELESSNESS 70 YALE HUMAN RIGHTS & DEVELOPMENT L.J. 2017 [Vol. 19 JCE interpretation that had been framed in the 2004 immigration law, specifically finding that “non-residents,” as redefined in that law, were “in transit” under the Constitution and therefore their children were not Dominican citizens.149 These cases were appealed, and they ultimately arrived at a new Constitutional Court, which had been established by the 2010 Constitution.150 In 2013, the Dominican Constitutional Court elaborated on positions taken by the SCJ with regard to the scope of “in transit” exception to birthright nationality151 and retroactively interpreted the nationality provisions of every Dominican Constitution since 1929.152 The case was that of Julianna Deguis Pierre, a woman whose birth certificate had been confiscated by the JCE.153 The central issue was whether her registration as Dominican at birth was improper due to the fact that her parents were agricultural workers from Haiti.154 The Constitutional Court found that her identity documents had been properly seized and that nullification proceedings against her Dominican nationality had been appropriately initiated under the Constitution.155 In finding that these actions were appropriate and consistent with the Dominican Constitution, the Constitutional Court provided an analysis under the title: “The appellant does not derive Dominican nationality because she is the child of foreigners in transit unless she would otherwise be stateless.”156 The Court provided a four-part analysis in support of its conclusion that Ms. Deguis had acquired Haitian nationality and would not be left stateless if she was deprived of her Dominican nationality.157 Notably, the Court dedicated a substantial part of its analysis to refuting the Inter-American Court’s interpretation of Dominican laws in The Girls Yean and Bosico.158 The Constitutional Court then provided a statelessness TC%200275-13%20C.pdf [https://perma.cc/NVQ3-385A] (summarizing the findings in and grounds of the decision under appeal, Civil y Comercial del Juzgado de Primera Instancia del Distrito Judicial de San Pedro de Macorís [Civil and Commercial Chamber of the First Instance of the Judicial District of San Pedro de Macoris], Sentencia Núm. 708-2012 (Nov. 30, 2012)). 149. See TCRD, 25 septiembre 2013, Sentencia TC/0168/13, pp. 2-4 (summarizing the findings in the decision under appeal, Cámara Civil, Comercial y de Trabajo del Juzgado de Primera Instancia del Distrito Judicial de Monte Plata [Civil, Commercial, and Labor Chamber of the First Instance of the Judicial District of Monte Plata], Sentencia Núm. 473/2012 [Judgment No. 473/2012] (2012)). 150. 2010 CONSTITUTION OF THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, Jan. 26, 2010, arts. 184-89. 151. See TCRD, 25 septiembre 2013, Sentencia TC/0168/13, pp. 53-68 (elaborating on the meaning of “in transit” under the laws of the Dominican Republic as part of a broader discussion about the meaning of this exception in the 1966 Constitution). 152. Id. at pp. 99-100 (ordering the JCE to review and revise the birth registry since 1929 to give effect to the TCRD’s interpretation of the “in transit” exception in TC/0168/13). 153. Id. at 3. 154. See id. at 35-36 (describing her parents’ status as agricultural workers who registered her with “fichas,” which were the documents provided to such laborers). 155. Id. at 98. 156. Id. at 43 (emphasis added) (author’s translation). 157. Id. 158. See id. at 68-75 (concluding, in a section titled The Position of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, that the Inter-American Court committed a “flagrant error of interpretation” when it relied on a Dominican law from 1939 to suggest that the Dominican Republic should Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3111529