Akron Law Review, Vol. 57 [2025], Iss. 1, Art. 2 76 AKRON LAW R EVIEW [57:49 birth certificate under its substantive and procedural laws and policies; this adjudication is made with minimal oversight or regulation from federal law or authorities. 156 Second, a federal agency or court independently assesses the finding that the individual is a U.S. citizen. The federal agency’s role is not to govern by providing a policy basis that states implement, nor to incorporate a decision under state law into an outcome for federal law. The federal court or agency may refuse to accept a delayed birth certificate or may require additional evidence to substantiate the facts of birth. 157 This is because state birth registration establishes only a presumption of birth in the United States that can be rebutted by evidence that the applicant was born outside the United States. In theory, the declaratory judgment statute in § 1503(a) provides a safeguard against state decisions that fail to recognize U.S. citizens. Strictly speaking, this means that a federal agency or court’s decision can trump a decision under state law. But extensive research of recent § 1503(a) petitions shows that the statute does not fill this role. While § 1503(a) does not require a petitioner to provide a birth certificate, research into § 1503(a) decisions over the last five years did not reveal a single case of a person pursuing a claim of citizenship (let alone securing recognition as a citizen) without a state-issued birth certificate. 158 Taking together the circumstances of parents seeking to avoid birth registration for their children, high bars for delayed birth registration under varied state law, and the de facto requirement of state birth registration to access federal law, there is a real risk that a small number of U.S. citizens by birth are not recognized as such. 158F 156. Remus, supra note 10, at 236–39. Note that Congress did require states to implement certification processes and safety features when issuing birth certificates. Despite these statutory mandates, states retain significant variety in their laws and regulations, as described in Part IV. Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Protection Act § 7211(b)(3) (codified as a note to 5 U.S.C. § 301) (2004). 157. See Remus, supra note 10, at 227; see also 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 contemporaneousl y 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 (denying a passport to an individual with a birth certificate issued through delayed birth registration procedures in Texas). Administrative agency decisions whether to recognize a person as a citizen, such as by issuing or refusing them a benefit such as a passport, are not generally a matter of public record. As a result, the reasons and factual circumstances for additional scrutiny are unclear. 158. Remus, supra note 10, at 245 (“[F]ederal authority reigns supreme in birth certificate issues, even though states judge citizenship claims in the first instance.”). https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol57/iss1/2 28