[00:00:01] Speaker 00: Good morning, Your Honors. [00:00:02] Speaker 00: May it please the court? [00:00:04] Speaker 00: My name is Taylor Renfrosakrider, and I represent the petitioner, Mr. Victor Mesa Carmona. [00:00:09] Speaker 00: At this time, I'd respectfully request three minutes reserved for rebuttal. [00:00:13] Speaker 00: The issue in this case is whether the district court and lower courts erred in finding that Mr. Mesa Carmona does not qualify for derivative citizenship for failure to show that his mother continuously resided in the United States for one year. [00:00:25] Speaker 00: This court should reverse because Mr. Mesa Carmel's mother did live in the United States continuously for that one year period. [00:00:32] Speaker 00: This court in Guiabi, Garland held that where there is a claim to citizenship, the claimant bears the burden of grooving citizenship by a preponderance of the evidence. [00:00:41] Speaker 00: Further under this court's decision in Mondaka, Vega versus Lynch, once the government has proven that first step of the test through present fair convincing evidence of foreign birth, the burden then shifts to the petitioner to present substantial credible evidence of the citizenship claim. [00:00:56] Speaker 04: Mr. Renfro, if we agree with you that Mesa Carmona has established, by preponderance of evidence, to shift the burden, should it go back to the district court for an opportunity for the government to then meet the third prong of our test in Mundaka Vega? [00:01:18] Speaker 00: Your Honor, under the three-part test established by Mendega, I do believe that it would then, the burden would switch to the government then to prove that the removability. [00:01:28] Speaker 04: But would that have to occur in the district court on remand? [00:01:31] Speaker 04: So are you not claiming an opportunity for us to grant here if we agree with your arguments on the preponderance? [00:01:38] Speaker 00: Yes, Your Honor, I do believe that this court can decide that. [00:01:42] Speaker 00: The district court's review is specifically for the claim to citizenship. [00:01:49] Speaker 01: Council, I'm struggling with the burden of proof here. [00:01:56] Speaker 01: My understanding is that everybody seems to agree the government has provided enough information to shift the burden back to your client. [00:02:05] Speaker 01: And you, for example, rely upon the testimony primarily of Cedillo. [00:02:11] Speaker 01: She indicates that she lived in the United States for two years. [00:02:14] Speaker 01: She does not say, continuously, [00:02:17] Speaker 01: And there are incidents of border crossing during that time. [00:02:22] Speaker 01: She was caring for a child, a young child, who is the mother in this case. [00:02:28] Speaker 01: There's nothing that I see in the evidence that we are looking at that says specifically, I lived in the United States. [00:02:37] Speaker 01: I never left here. [00:02:38] Speaker 01: I lived continuously. [00:02:40] Speaker 01: And my understanding of the regulation and of, indeed, an unpublished case in our circuit [00:02:47] Speaker 01: that that's what has to be shown that Victoria lived in the United States continuously for at least a year. [00:02:57] Speaker 01: I don't find that in any of the documentation. [00:02:59] Speaker 01: Can you help me with that? [00:03:01] Speaker 01: What says, who says that she lived continuously, not back and forth, but continuously in the United States after Victoria was born? [00:03:13] Speaker 00: Yes, Your Honor, thank you. [00:03:14] Speaker 00: There are several parts that I'd like to address in this. [00:03:17] Speaker 00: So, yes, the court would find by components of the evidence more likely than not that she lived continuously in the United States. [00:03:24] Speaker 00: And what the district court had before it was a birth certificate showing that Mr. Mesa-Carmona's mother was born in the United States, August 21st, 1947. [00:03:34] Speaker 00: The court then has the baptism certificate showing nearly 11-month-old was baptized in El Paso, Texas. [00:03:44] Speaker 00: what we can reasonably infer, and she was born to two United States citizen parents, mother and father. [00:03:52] Speaker 00: There's no passport, nothing to show that between those 11 months that an infant was transported to Mexico. [00:04:00] Speaker 01: But Council, with respect, you seem to be suggesting that we have to infer [00:04:07] Speaker 01: that she stayed continuously. [00:04:09] Speaker 01: But I think the government has shown by border crossing evidence that during that period of time that Cedillo did in fact cross the border. [00:04:18] Speaker 01: Since she had a small child with her, there's at least an equal presumption that she took her with him. [00:04:24] Speaker 01: So again, I'm struggling with where there is evidence that is admissible other than an inference that she [00:04:33] Speaker 01: that Cedillo kept her, and Victoria was in the United States continuously from the time of her birth until after that one year period. [00:04:43] Speaker 01: What am I missing? [00:04:44] Speaker 00: Yes, Judge. [00:04:45] Speaker 00: If I may provide a timeline here then, Miss Cedillo does not take custody of Mr. Mesa Carmona's mother until after the baptism. [00:04:54] Speaker 00: So we have the birth, we have the baptism, all of this time his mother was under the custody, or under the care of his mother. [00:05:01] Speaker 00: The affidavit provided by Ms. [00:05:03] Speaker 00: Cedillo specifically states that she did not take custody of the child of Ms. [00:05:09] Speaker 00: Carmona until after the baptism. [00:05:12] Speaker 01: Okay, but from the time of birth until after the one-year period, what do we look at that says, I had Victoria and I stayed in the United States essentially for a period from birth through one year? [00:05:28] Speaker 01: I'm not finding that. [00:05:29] Speaker 01: What am I missing? [00:05:33] Speaker 00: So we have the birth, and then we have the baptism certificate. [00:05:39] Speaker 00: She was born to a United States citizen, mother a United States citizen, father. [00:05:43] Speaker 00: There's no passport in the record. [00:05:45] Speaker 02: So, counsel, I just, I have to say I don't hear an answer to Judge Smith's question. [00:05:52] Speaker 02: I'm looking at the district court's finding at SCR 11. [00:05:56] Speaker 02: where the district court said, no one with personal knowledge of Ms. [00:06:01] Speaker 02: Carmona's whereabouts from her birth until her baptism has testified that Ms. [00:06:07] Speaker 02: Carmona was continually physically present in the United States during this period. [00:06:14] Speaker 02: And Ms. [00:06:15] Speaker 02: Cedillo's [00:06:17] Speaker 02: affidavit, which presumably was prepared for the purposes of the immigration proceeding or related to it, said Victoria lived with me approximately two years, but doesn't say and Victoria never went to Mexico at any time during that period. [00:06:39] Speaker 02: or Victoria never went to Mexico between X date and Y date. [00:06:45] Speaker 02: Given the standard of review, I think what Judge Smith, respectfully, not trying to put words in Judge Smith's mouth, I think what Judge Smith is looking for is something that says, here's the one year period and [00:07:01] Speaker 02: uh, the, uh, the mom was in the United States the entirety of that. [00:07:08] Speaker 02: I don't see it either. [00:07:09] Speaker 02: Uh, and so if you can answer Judge Smith's question as to what actually demonstrates that, I would be very interested. [00:07:20] Speaker 00: Yes, Judge. [00:07:22] Speaker 00: Uh, that's correct that there's nothing, uh, [00:07:25] Speaker 00: that she had lived during that time under a factual finding for clear error. [00:07:32] Speaker 00: We look to see what's in the record in the entire evidence for a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed and including that is illogical, implausible or without support in inferences that could be drawn from the facts in the record. [00:07:46] Speaker 01: You seem to be suggesting, Council, that we have to infer that and that that would meet the evidentiary standard. [00:07:53] Speaker 01: Is that correct? [00:07:55] Speaker 00: Your honor, I do think that, yes, that the immigration, or excuse me, not immigration, the district court judge erred in failing to infer that she was a United States citizen born to two United States citizen parents. [00:08:08] Speaker 00: The mention of the border crossing card wouldn't come into play, your honor, until Ms. [00:08:12] Speaker 00: Cedillo, who was after the baptism, so to- Ms. [00:08:16] Speaker 04: Renfro, I guess to help situate this, we've got 11 months, roughly. [00:08:22] Speaker 04: where there doesn't seem to be a real dispute over she's with her mother, it's up to the baptism. [00:08:32] Speaker 04: So then we're dealing with she needs to remain in the United States for 39 days after the baptism. [00:08:39] Speaker 04: The first evidence that she returned and there's no [00:08:44] Speaker 04: evidence there that she had, that Ms. [00:08:47] Speaker 04: Cedillo had taken Victoria across the border. [00:08:51] Speaker 04: But the first card, if it shows that she re-entered, is in December, several months after those 39 days. [00:08:58] Speaker 04: So we're disputing here whether there's evidence of, where was Victoria during those 39 days? [00:09:08] Speaker 04: Is that right? [00:09:09] Speaker 04: That seems to be the dispute. [00:09:11] Speaker 00: Yes, Your Honor. [00:09:11] Speaker 00: And in regards to the border crossing card, I do believe that this warrants remand because the district court, as well as the parties in this case, seem to have been confused on exactly what the border crossing card meant. [00:09:25] Speaker 00: So this border crossing card is not akin to even a border crossing card in today's immigration law. [00:09:30] Speaker 00: What that is, it shows that Ms. [00:09:33] Speaker 00: Cedillo was a lawful permanent resident [00:09:35] Speaker 00: and was issued this card in El Paso, Texas in 1945. [00:09:40] Speaker 04: The border crossing card doesn't even show transit during the applicable period. [00:09:46] Speaker 04: It's several months afterwards, isn't it? [00:09:48] Speaker 04: And so the government is the one who has custody of all of these records. [00:09:52] Speaker 04: Is that correct? [00:09:53] Speaker 04: Given the deaths and the distance of time, the government would be in the best position to show whether there was exit and reentry. [00:10:00] Speaker 04: And the best they've come up with is a late December, well past the applicable period crossing card. [00:10:07] Speaker 04: Is that right? [00:10:07] Speaker 00: That is correct, Your Honor. [00:10:09] Speaker 00: That border crossing card doesn't show any entries, any exits. [00:10:13] Speaker 00: All of those dates that it just shows is an issuance date, which [00:10:18] Speaker 00: Um, in today's passport, um, just because you were issued a passport on that, on that date does not mean that that meant you re entered the United States border crossing cards sometimes indicate whether, uh, the person is transient with an infant. [00:10:33] Speaker 04: Um, I think there are sometimes whether they're this, the border crossing card at issue doesn't contain any evidence that, um, even outside this period that Ms. [00:10:43] Speaker 04: Cedillo is crossing with anyone else. [00:10:46] Speaker 00: That's correct. [00:10:47] Speaker 00: Judge, it does not mention anything regarding Mr. Victor Carmosa. [00:10:51] Speaker 01: I want to get back to what we talked about before, because whether or not I agree with my colleague about the period that he says is undisputed, I think you said earlier, and I agree with you, that in order to fill in the blanks here, you have to infer. [00:11:08] Speaker 01: There is no direct evidence of a competent witness that can say she was here in the United States from the time of her birth until at least one year after. [00:11:18] Speaker 01: You have to infer that she was. [00:11:21] Speaker 01: And what is your best authority that we can do that in this case that would meet your client's burden of proof? [00:11:35] Speaker 00: Well, Your Honor, under the Mondega case, [00:11:39] Speaker 00: in reviewing the evidence to see if there was clear error, it calls to see if the district court then found that there was a logical impossible or without support in inferences that can be drawn from the facts. [00:11:51] Speaker 01: That's what I'm saying. [00:11:52] Speaker 01: You are relying on inferences to fill in the gaps, right? [00:11:57] Speaker 01: And what I'm asking is, do you have any case law or any regulation that would indicate that that is permissible in meeting your client's burden of proof? [00:12:08] Speaker 00: I don't have any case law before any judge to provide that to the court. [00:12:12] Speaker 00: However, I would note that the petitioner should need to provide evidence of every single day that this petitioner lived in the United States. [00:12:21] Speaker 00: And not to mention, Judge, this was in 1947. [00:12:23] Speaker 00: There were not iPhones, there were not digital cameras, camcorders, or anything like that, that in today's society, a mother or father would take pictures every day to show that this child resided in the United States. [00:12:37] Speaker 00: every single day of that one year period. [00:12:40] Speaker 02: But Council, if Judge Johnson is correct, that the relevant period is 39 days. [00:12:49] Speaker 02: Ms. [00:12:50] Speaker 02: Cedillo had personal knowledge of what was going on during that 39 days, right? [00:12:55] Speaker 00: That is correct, Your Honor. [00:12:56] Speaker 02: And Ms. [00:12:56] Speaker 02: Cedillo could have said in her August 5th, 1976 declaration, during that 39-day period, Mom was in my custody and never left the United States. [00:13:14] Speaker 00: She could have specifically stated that, your honor. [00:13:17] Speaker 00: However, in her affidavit, she states that after the baptism, she took custody of the child and she states they specifically lived on the 8300 block of Alameda Avenue in El Paso, Texas. [00:13:29] Speaker 00: So she specifically states during that time, [00:13:31] Speaker 00: in her custody under the placement of child protective custody that she lived in El Paso, Texas in the United States. [00:13:38] Speaker 02: You know, honestly, counsel, if I had to draw an evidentiary inference from that, given the purpose of the declaration, I might actually draw an opposite inference from the fact that it would have been relatively easy to say that we never left the country during that period, and it doesn't actually say that. [00:13:59] Speaker 02: But there's no dispute, right, that this, and tell me if I'm wrong, that this affidavit was prepared specifically for immigration purposes. [00:14:11] Speaker 00: Your Honor, I apologize. [00:14:13] Speaker 00: I do not have knowledge of that to say yes or no. [00:14:16] Speaker 01: You want to save the balance of your time, counsel? [00:14:18] Speaker 00: Yes, Judge. [00:14:19] Speaker 00: Thank you very much. [00:14:20] Speaker 01: Very well. [00:14:21] Speaker 01: All right, let's hear from the government. [00:14:26] Speaker 03: May it please the court? [00:14:27] Speaker 03: Robert Tennyson for the government again. [00:14:32] Speaker 03: There are sympathies in this case. [00:14:33] Speaker 03: I mean, we're talking about a case that arose around the facts of which are from 1947 and 1948. [00:14:40] Speaker 03: And it's hard to find documents for this period, or people who are still around who can testify directly about the events. [00:14:49] Speaker 03: But Congress was clear in requiring people to establish one year [00:14:55] Speaker 03: of continuous physical presence. [00:14:57] Speaker 03: And there's no clear error in the district court judge's finding that that one year was not shown. [00:15:04] Speaker 01: Let me ask you this. [00:15:05] Speaker 01: I asked your friend on the other side whether she knew of any case law or regulation that would permit us to infer that Victoria was in the United States continuously from her birth until [00:15:24] Speaker 01: the one-year period had passed. [00:15:26] Speaker 01: Are you aware of any such case law? [00:15:28] Speaker 03: I'm not aware of any case. [00:15:29] Speaker 03: I'm not aware of any statute. [00:15:31] Speaker 03: The immigration judge, I mean, the district court judge could have read the evidence and come to the conclusion, you know, and could have drawn normal evidentiary inferences and come to the conclusion that [00:15:43] Speaker 03: He was here for a year. [00:15:44] Speaker 03: I don't think that the district court judge was precluded from doing that, but the district court judge looked at the evidence and said... And they have to show clear error, right? [00:15:51] Speaker 03: And that's a clear... And the thing is clear error. [00:15:53] Speaker 03: This is a clear error case. [00:15:54] Speaker 04: What else would a petitioner need to bring to the court to establish that an infant is continuously present beyond... For these remaining 35 days, we have the birth certificate, we have the baptismal certificate. [00:16:10] Speaker 04: Given that the government has only come up with an entry card that was outside this period, what else did they need to show? [00:16:17] Speaker 04: Was it simply the magic words of continuous presence? [00:16:21] Speaker 04: How else are we supposed to know where an infant is in her first year? [00:16:24] Speaker 03: I think the appropriate response would have been, the petitioner lived with me these days and I didn't go to Mexico, or the petitioner lived in the United States continuously during these periods. [00:16:33] Speaker 03: It doesn't have to be the specific words. [00:16:36] Speaker 03: Also, the district court judge not only found for the final 39 days, but during the period between the birth certificate and the baptismal certificate, that there's no evidence put forward of continuous physical presence during this period as well. [00:16:52] Speaker 04: What evidence would look like? [00:16:53] Speaker 04: What would that look like again? [00:16:55] Speaker 03: I mean, we could have had evidence from, say, the petitioner's, let's say, aunt or someone else in the family who said, oh, petitioner never arrived in Mexico at the grandparents until such and such date. [00:17:10] Speaker 03: I was there. [00:17:11] Speaker 03: I kept track of her. [00:17:14] Speaker 03: Or of the parents who disappeared at some point, some statement or affidavit that she was there. [00:17:19] Speaker 03: If you could have had some evidence from you know, if you have evidence of her residing, you know There needed to have been somebody saying she was here Every day from the time she was born until a year later or from some, you know for one year and we just don't have that and in the absence of that the district court judge and in sort of [00:17:46] Speaker 03: with regard to the petitioner's mother's testimony, she's not consistent as the district court. [00:17:53] Speaker 04: But we can set aside the mother's testimony on both sides. [00:17:55] Speaker 04: But so, I mean, from what did the district court draw? [00:17:59] Speaker 04: We're dealing with inferences on both sides. [00:18:01] Speaker 04: So from what could the district court draw an inference that she had left when there's no evidence in the record that she did? [00:18:09] Speaker 03: But it's not an inference that she left. [00:18:11] Speaker 03: There has to be some evidence that she stayed. [00:18:14] Speaker 03: That's all that so it's how does that fit with that? [00:18:16] Speaker 04: Yeah, I mean, I think this is this is helpful We've got this burden-shifting framework, right? [00:18:20] Speaker 04: I guess we're trying to understand in terms of right now We're at we're we're asking whether they met the second step right is the evidence that that she Left or a state is are we arguing about the third step there or are we arguing whether? [00:18:38] Speaker 04: She'd satisfy the second step. [00:18:40] Speaker 03: Whether she satisfied the second step, whether or not there's a substantial credible evidence of her having been in the year for that. [00:18:45] Speaker 01: I want to go back to what my colleague Judge Bennett said before. [00:18:49] Speaker 01: As noted, Ms. [00:18:52] Speaker 01: Cedillo signed a declaration. [00:18:54] Speaker 01: She was with counsel that was intended for the purposes of this proceeding. [00:18:59] Speaker 01: They knew what the standard was, and yet she did not say. [00:19:04] Speaker 01: that Victoria was with her continuously during that one year period. [00:19:10] Speaker 01: To the degree that our inference is drawn, can we draw the inference that she was unable to say so because she couldn't accurately do so? [00:19:19] Speaker 03: This court is certainly free. [00:19:20] Speaker 03: And she offered the statement. [00:19:21] Speaker 03: I think the statement that we're talking about is one that was offered to the INS back in 1994, 1995. [00:19:25] Speaker 03: But the 76th affidavit. [00:19:29] Speaker 03: The 76th, yes. [00:19:32] Speaker 02: And that comes at the, I mean, it appears to be connected because we have, although we're not relying on it, we have the July 7, 1976 internal memorandum of mom's interview. [00:19:48] Speaker 02: And then this is August 5th, 1976, less than a month later, and submitted apparently in the immigration proceeding back then, or something back then. [00:20:00] Speaker 02: Right. [00:20:00] Speaker 02: Is there anything in the record which suggests that this August 5th, 1976 affidavit was unconnected to the immigration proceeding? [00:20:10] Speaker 03: It was sent to INS. [00:20:12] Speaker 03: The petitioner had sought an N-600 back in the mid-70s. [00:20:18] Speaker 03: It was an INS interview with the petitioner. [00:20:23] Speaker 02: She had not petitioners mother she came in she said I left shortly after I was born right next but we can't but this is all within the context of the that in 600 application okay so the the August 5th 76 affidavit SCR 97 that there is evidence that that was submitted to [00:20:43] Speaker 02: to the servicer or predecessor in connection with the immigration discussion of when she was in the country and when she wasn't. [00:20:55] Speaker 02: That is correct, Your Honor. [00:20:56] Speaker 02: Thank you. [00:20:57] Speaker 04: Mr. Tennyson, I guess we've heard some [00:21:01] Speaker 04: Decent arguments about what the declaration might have said or didn't say. [00:21:04] Speaker 04: That's not what the district court relied on. [00:21:06] Speaker 04: The district court required corroboration. [00:21:08] Speaker 04: Is there any legal requirement that Ms. [00:21:10] Speaker 04: Adio's affidavit be corroborated before the district court disregard it? [00:21:16] Speaker 03: I mean, the district court can make findings of fact and find that the petitioner that that statement [00:21:27] Speaker 03: is insufficient in and of itself to substantiate the point being made? [00:21:31] Speaker 04: Well, to use the word I think corroboration, how is that not legal error in terms of evaluating the evidence? [00:21:40] Speaker 04: They didn't say, the affidavit didn't say enough about continuous presence every day during these 39 days or the prior year. [00:21:48] Speaker 04: They said there's no corroboration here, but otherwise would seem to have credited that as evidence in the petitioner's favor. [00:21:56] Speaker 03: But the district court further went on to state that there's no indication that she remained in the country continuously during that period. [00:22:06] Speaker 03: And then the documents that were there to corroborate that question. [00:22:10] Speaker 04: But that is the indication, is it not? [00:22:11] Speaker 04: And so if the district court disregards it because it's not corroborated and there's no corroboration requirement, how is that not error? [00:22:21] Speaker 03: I think first, the district court [00:22:25] Speaker 03: One, the district court went on to look at what potentially could have corroborated it. [00:22:29] Speaker 03: Don't forget corroborated it. [00:22:31] Speaker 03: It was the petitioner that submitted originally the border crossing cards to the district court. [00:22:37] Speaker 03: And the way the border crossing cards work is first, it's a person who has to be in, or at least the particular form and type of border crossing card is one given to LPRs to facilitate transit back and forth across the border for someone who lives there very closely. [00:22:53] Speaker 03: You obtain them for a six-month period. [00:22:55] Speaker 03: At the time you would obtain them, you would get them for a six-month period, and then you'd re-up them. [00:22:59] Speaker 03: And so each of these dates here, these revalidations, [00:23:03] Speaker 03: is a revalidated, is a extension, a six month extension of the border crossing card. [00:23:08] Speaker 04: Was there a border crossing card in effect for the, because the extension from December would have been for the following six months. [00:23:15] Speaker 04: Right. [00:23:15] Speaker 04: And that's outside the period. [00:23:16] Speaker 04: So was there a border crossing card produced by the government, which has custody of these, establishing that one was in effect at the time? [00:23:25] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:23:26] Speaker 03: Look at SER 112 and you can see [00:23:30] Speaker 03: that the border crossing card is originally issued in 1945. [00:23:34] Speaker 03: It's reissued again in June of 1945, reissued in December of 1945, June of 1946, December of 1946, June of 1947, December of 1947, June of 1948. [00:23:50] Speaker 03: And then at SER 14, again, [00:23:54] Speaker 03: She gets an extension to December of 1948, gets a new border crossing card for December of 1948. [00:24:00] Speaker 03: So there's a series of border crossings, there's a border crossing card before that with a series of reissuances all the way up until you have the December 1948 new border card being issued. [00:24:15] Speaker 02: So yes. [00:24:18] Speaker 02: My colleague's question, as I understand what Judge Bolton was saying with regard to Ms. [00:24:24] Speaker 02: Cedillo's affidavit was, it doesn't say that mom was in the country continuously. [00:24:34] Speaker 02: It's not direct evidence supporting [00:24:36] Speaker 02: what petitioner's burden is. [00:24:39] Speaker 02: So saying that because Judge Bolton said that, Judge Bolton then went on to look at the remainder of the evidence and see if that could support a finding. [00:24:49] Speaker 02: And did that not, it's, did that solely because Ms. [00:24:56] Speaker 02: Cedillo's affidavit didn't go to what Judge Bolton found was the key point. [00:25:03] Speaker 02: Was she there without ever leaving? [00:25:04] Speaker 03: That is correct, Your Honor. [00:25:07] Speaker 03: So the district court judge essentially said, we don't have anything that shows continuous, and it's her burden, and it is his burden to establish that continuous physical presence. [00:25:18] Speaker 03: There's nothing here in this declaration that says that. [00:25:22] Speaker 03: Let's move on and start looking at the physical evidence. [00:25:24] Speaker 03: So yes. [00:25:28] Speaker 03: If this court has no further questions for me, the government rest. [00:25:32] Speaker 01: Thank you so much. [00:25:33] Speaker 01: All right. [00:25:34] Speaker 01: Counsel, you got a little rebuttal time. [00:25:37] Speaker 00: Thank you, Judge. [00:25:39] Speaker 00: I do believe that under de novo review and clear error that there were inferences that could have been drawn that this court needs to consider that Mr. Mesa Carmona's mother was an infant in the United States, born in the United States to two United States citizen parents. [00:25:57] Speaker 00: We have a birth certificate showing birth in the United States, a baptism certificate showing baptism in the United States. [00:26:03] Speaker 00: We have affidavits from adults. [00:26:05] Speaker 00: who have personal knowledge of her whereabouts in the United States, but also testimony that she was in the care of Child Protective Services after the baptism. [00:26:14] Speaker 00: Now, a person that's placed under Child Protective Services is not going to be allowed to be transported to Mexico while under an investigation, while her mother's being investigated. [00:26:28] Speaker 00: evidence has been shown that the court should be able to infer that a United States citizen born to United States citizen parents continuously resided in those affidavits as well. [00:26:38] Speaker 01: But Council, I think you agreed before that in order to get where you need to go, we need to infer something and there's no case law or regulation that you can cite it to that permits us to do that. [00:26:50] Speaker 01: Is that right? [00:26:51] Speaker 00: That is correct, Your Honor, but as I also argued, it shouldn't be expected of the petitioner to show every single day of living in the United States. [00:27:00] Speaker 00: You can take what was provided as well as the affidavits of adults who had knowledge of the whereabouts of this child to show that there was no reason for this child to have been transported to Mexico in that border crossing car that we make a lot of reference to, do not show any entries or exits of an infant [00:27:17] Speaker 00: out of the United States to break that continuous residence. [00:27:19] Speaker 01: We've let you go a little over time, but let me ask my colleagues whether either has additional questions. [00:27:23] Speaker 01: Thanks to both counsel for your argument. [00:27:25] Speaker 01: The case just argued is submitted.