The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Jorge Antonio Guerra Quezada and Manuel Salvador Guerra Vasquez, who claimed U.S. citizenship based on their grandmother's citizenship. The court's decision, filed on August 14, 2026, affirms a lower court's dismissal of their claims, which included requests for money damages and a declaratory judgment. This ruling has significant implications for individuals claiming citizenship through ancestry.
The case, Guerra Vasquez v. United States, was filed under docket number 25-10555. The plaintiffs, both born in Mexico, argued that their citizenship derived from their grandmother, Cruz Rodriguez de Guerra, who was born in Kansas in 1924. The court's decision affects not only the appellants but also sets a precedent for similar cases regarding citizenship claims based on ancestry.
The dispute arose when Guerra-Quezada received a certificate of citizenship in December 2021, which the government later claimed was issued in error. Both Guerra-Vasquez and Guerra-Quezada have faced removal orders in the past, complicating their claims to citizenship. Guerra-Vasquez was a lawful permanent resident but faced legal issues leading to his removal, while Guerra-Quezada was also previously a lawful permanent resident before being removed due to a felony conviction.
The two men sought relief in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, asserting claims under various legal statutes, including the Administrative Procedure Act and the Federal Tort Claims Act. However, the district court denied all relief, prompting their appeal to the Fifth Circuit.
The Fifth Circuit's ruling affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that the appellants' claims did not meet the necessary legal requirements for citizenship. The court highlighted that under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), it lacked jurisdiction over the appellants' damages claims because they were considered aliens. The court noted, "Neither Guerra-Vasquez nor Guerra-Quezada is a United States citizen," emphasizing that their claims to citizenship were not valid under existing law.
The judges in this case included Leslie H. Southwick, James C. Ho, and Don R. Willett. The court found that the appellants' claims were based on a doctrine of constructive presence, which had not been adopted by any circuit court of appeals. The court stated, "We reject the constructive-presence doctrine," affirming that the appellants must meet the physical presence requirements established by Congress.
The ruling also addressed the appellants' attempts to assert due process claims, which the court found were forfeited due to inadequate briefing. The court expressed concern over inaccuracies in the briefs filed by the appellants' counsel, noting that both briefs contained significant errors and misattributed quotes. As a result, the court emphasized the importance of accurate legal representation and adherence to procedural rules.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond the immediate case. It clarifies the requirements for claiming U.S. citizenship through ancestry and reinforces the importance of meeting legal standards set by Congress. The decision may affect other individuals seeking citizenship based on similar claims, as it establishes a precedent that courts cannot create exceptions to existing laws regarding citizenship.
Moving forward, the appellants may consider appealing the decision to a higher court, although details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential related cases. The ruling serves as a reminder of the complexities surrounding immigration law and the importance of adhering to established legal frameworks when seeking citizenship.