Fisher: Citizenship, Federalism, and Delayed Birth Registration 2024] C ITIZENSHIP, F EDERALISM, AND DELAYED BIRTH R EGISTRATION 61 removal proceedings or related immigration processes. 68 State birth registration documents the facts of birth that entitle a person to U.S citizenship, but birth certificates issued by states may not be accepted by federal government agencies. 69 Registration showing birth in the United States is insufficient to guarantee recognition of citizenship for two reasons. First, there is an exceptional situation under which a person born in the United States is not a citizen: a child born to a diplomat credentialed to represent a foreign state in the United States does not receive birthright citizenship. 70 Second, federal and state government agencies can also require additional evidence or rebut evidence of birth in the United States with evidence of birth outside the United States. 71 As noted by a federal court, “while a state birth certificate is considered ‘primary evidence of birth in the United States’ for purposes of determining citizenship . . . [the] Secretary of State[] retains the discretion to require additional evidence of citizenship before granting a passport.” 72 Still, federal agencies generally require state-issued birth certificates when assessing eligibility for federal benefits tied to citizenship. When applying for a passport for the first time, a person “born in the United States generally must submit a birth certificate.” 73 However, “primary evidence of birth in the United States” includes only a birth certificate that is filed “within one year of the date of birth,” even when a later-registered 68. Individuals claiming U.S. citizenship in removal proceedings must generally pursue claims of U.S. citizenship in those proceedings. Dessouki v. Kelly, 311 F. Supp. 3d 686, 691 (E.D. Pa. 2018) (noting that 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a) bars use of declaratory judgment for individuals whose claims arise in removal proceedings); see also Hillary Gaston Walsh, Unequivocally Different: The Third Civil Standard of Proof, 66 U. KAN. L. R EV. 565, 572 (2018). The Administrative Procedure Act may also provide a remedy to resolve questions of citizenship in exceptional situations. Valerio v. Limon, 533 F. Supp. 3d 439, 464 (S.D. Tex. 2021) (holding, that because § 1503 did not provide an adequate remedy, the Administrative Procedure Act gave the federal court subject matter jurisdiction over a challenge to individuals’ applications for certificates of citizenship.). 69. Remus, supra note 10, at 227. 70. 8 C.F.R. § 101.3(a)(1) (1982). 71. See Candela-Rios v. Sessions, No. CVSA16MC00220JWP, 2017 WL 8131999, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 2, 2017), aff’d, 737 F. App’x 187 (5th Cir. 2018) (holding that “[a]lthough petitioner submitted prima facie evidence in the form of a delayed Texas birth certificate, this evidence was rebutted by petitioner’s contemporaneously recorded Mexican birth record, along with evidence that petitioner repeatedly stated under oath that he was born in Mexico, provided conflicting testimony on this issue and was not credible.”); De La Cruz v. Clinton, No. A-11-CV-675-AWA, 2012 WL 1941373, at *4 (W.D. Texas May 29, 2012) (denying a passport to an individual with a birth certificat e issued through delayed birth registration procedures in Texas). For an exploration of people with state birth registration whose entitlement to citizenship is challenged by the U.S. government, see Remus, supra note 10. 72. Garcia v. Clinton, 915 F. Supp. 2d 831, 834 (S.D. Tex. 2012), aff’d sub nom; Garcia v. Kerry, 557 F. App’x 304 (5th Cir. 2014). 73. 22 C.F.R. § 51.42(a) (2007). Published by IdeaExchange@UAkron, 2025 13