Mondaca-Vega

Opinion by Judge GRABER; Dissent by Judge PREGERSON.

OPINION

Who is Petitioner? Is he Reynaldo Car-Ion Mondaca, a native and citizen of the United States, or is he Salvador Mondaca-Vega, a native and citizen of Mexico? The district court determined that Petitioner is Salvador Mondaca-Vega and, accordingly, that he is not a United States citizen. Reviewing the district court’s findings for clear error and finding none, we now deny the petition for review.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

We first reviewed Petitioner’s final order of removal in 2003. In considering his claim of citizenship, 1 we noted genuine issues of fact. Therefore, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(5) — which now appears with only minimal modifications at 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(5) — we transferred the matter to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington to resolve Petitioner’s.claim of United States citizenship. Mondaca-Vega v. Ashcroft, 104 Fed.Appx. 627 (9th Cir.2004) (unpublished).

The district court held a bench trial, after which it made extensive findings of fact. As the case reaches us, these relevant underlying facts are undisputed:

On June 3, 1931, Salvador Mondaca-Vega…

dissenting:

The Supreme Court has long held that when the priceless right of United States citizenship is at stake, the government must prove its case by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence. Integral to the government’s heavy burden of proof, the Supreme Court established that we are required to independently review such cases and must scrutinize the record ourselves in order to safeguard the right of citizenship. Our precedents have faithfully and consistently followed the Supreme Court’s instructions.

On dubious grounds, the majority declares that in Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273 , 102 S.Ct. 1781 , 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982) and Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564 , 105 S.Ct. 1504 , 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985), the Supreme Court impliedly overruled the long line of Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit cases holding that we are required to independently review citizenship cases. See Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490 , 101 S.Ct. 737 , 66 L.Ed.2d 686 (1981); Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265 , 81 S.Ct. 534 , 5 L.Ed.2d 551 (1961); Chaunt v. United States, 364 U.S. 350 , 81 S.Ct. 147 , 5 L.Ed.2d 120 (1960); Nowak v. United States, 356 U.S. 660 , 78…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SALVADOR MONDACA -VEGA , No. 03-71369 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A019-263-384

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, OPINION Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted September 19, 2012—San Francisco, California

Filed April 25, 2013

Before: Harry Pregerson, Susan P. Graber, and Consuelo M. Callahan, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Graber; Dissent by Judge Pregerson MONDACA -VEGA V . HOLDER

SUMMARY*

Immigration

The panel denied Salvador Mondaca-Vega’s petition for review of the district court’s findings, following a bench trial pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(5) (now 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5)), that he is not a United States citizen.

The panel held that the proper standard of review of the district court’s findings of fact on petitioner’s nationality claim is for clear error. The panel held that Lim v. Mitchell, 431 F.2d 197 (9th Cir. 1970), which would require de novo review, has been effectively overruled because it relied on cases that the Supreme…