Recording-2025-09-16T16:59:04.806Z

Sessions v. Morales and related INA provisions

• Context of the discussion: issues around paternity, blood relationship, and how the INA treats children born out of wedlock, especially in relation to unwed fathers vs unwed mothers.
• Case reference: Sessions v. Morales (discussion references the decision and its reasoning about gender-based distinctions in immigration law).
• Core statutory focus: 8 U.S.C. § 1401 and 8 U.S.C. § 1409, with emphasis on blood relationship, legitimation, and how the law treats children born out of wedlock.

Key statutes and definitions

• Primary statute to know: 8 U.S.C. § 1401 (often referenced as 14(o)1 in the discussion).
  • The speaker stresses familiarity with this statute as central to analyzing the father–child relationship for immigration purposes.
  • Notation encountered in the transcript: 8\text{ U.S.C.} \ 1401.
• Related provision: 8 U.S.C. § 1409 (referred to as 14(o)9 in the discussion).
  • This provision deals with additional burdens or considerations that can fall on fathers in some cases, and there are references to an exception for mothers that was modified around 02/2017.
  • Notation encountered: 8\text{ U.S.C.} \ 1409.
• Definitions discussed in the lecture (as presented):
  • "Child" means an unmarried person, age up to 21, who is a child born in wedlock, according to the speaker’s framing.
  • Lay interpretation discussed: to show the relationship for immigration petitions, especially in the context of legitimate vs. illegitimate children.
  • "Stepchild" provision: applies when the child is a stepchild, regardless of whether born out of wedlock, provided the marriage creating the stepchild status occurred before the child reached age 18.
  • Bona fide relationship evidence (as an immigration officer would evaluate a petition): financial dependence, financial support, sending money, and whether the parties are living together (or not).

Equal protection and standard of scrutiny

• The discussion cites Justice Ginsburg’s view in Sessions v. Morales that treating unwed mothers preferentially over unwed fathers is unfair and violates equal protection principles.
• The standard of review referenced:
  • The transcript contrasts heightened scrutiny with rational-basis review (rather than applying rational basis or intermediate scrutiny);
  • The heightened scrutiny standard requires a compelling state interest and narrowly tailored means.
• Assessment in the discussion: although the court found the gender-based distinction to be not fair, the result of the specific case still reflected the particular statutory framework and the court’s interpretation of the exceptions (e.g., “the mother's one year is the exception; the standard is the five years”).

Priority dates, categories, and immigration flow

• Priority date concept:
  • The priority date is the date that USCIS (or the Department of Homeland Security) receives the petition, which governs the beneficiary’s place in line.
  • Important caveat discussed: the priority date is not always the receipt date when many petitions arrive during busy periods; the backlog can influence when a petition can be adjudicated.
• Example category mentioned: F3 (family third preference) – “married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens.”
  • The speaker notes that for a petition filed by a U.S. citizen for a child, the F3 category is implicated when discussing family-based immigration flow and wait times.
• The speaker mentions a specific older line about a country program context:
  • The example given about Mexico relates to a broader claim that certain countries have different participation rules in visa lotteries or allocation programs, illustrating how country of origin can influence processing, though the actual visa lottery implications are complex and change over time.
• Practical framing used by the speaker for evaluating cases:
  • When evaluating a petition, consider where the beneficiary falls in the priority-date queue, and whether the beneficiary is in a category like F3 or another family-based category.
• Historical note referenced:
  • The speaker mentions a rule that can affect the wait time and application strategy, with a memorable date:
  • “Filed on or before 03/15/2001” for a certain visa lottery context, suggesting backlogs and cap considerations.
• Visual/ballpark takeaway:
  • A long wait is common in family-sponsored categories (e.g., F3), potentially yielding long times to obtain a green card.

Facts, hypothetical scenarios, and interpretation questions raised

• Relationship questions in complex families:
  • If a child is born to a mother who later has another child with a different partner (an illicit affair in the scenario), the question arises whether the biological father’s relationship can be recognized for immigration purposes.
  • The parent might later claim a paternal relationship; the law looks at whether a bona fide father–child relationship exists, including whether the father acknowledged the child and whether there was ongoing support.
• Hypothetical for stepchildren and half-relations:
  • The speaker asks how to treat a potential petition when the father’s relationship to a child is via half-siblings or through illegitimate paternity arrangements.
  • The importance of showing a parent–child link under the immigration framework is emphasized, including evidence of ongoing relationship, support, and legitimacy.
• The concept of “bona fide relationship” and evidence:
  • Financial support, money transfers, and other indicators of ongoing relationship are used to establish the relationship for petition purposes.
• Ten-year-ish circuit nuance:
  • The Ninth Circuit is mentioned as having specific rulings about how the 14(o)1 and 14(o)9 provisions operate, with a note that the Supreme Court criticized the Ninth Circuit about the handling of these provisions about a decade ago.
• Death of the petitioner (the U.S. citizen parent) and the beneficiary:
  • Historically, if the petitioner died, the petition would die.
  • The speaker mentions a corrective mechanism: if the beneficiary was living in the United States with the petitioner and remains in the U.S. at the time of adjudication, then the petition can be approved under certain circumstances.
• Practical takeaway from the discussion:
  • The combination of 1401, 1409, eligibility rules for children born out of wedlock, and the potential death of the petitioner creates a complex set of scenarios you must navigate when evaluating a case.

Ninth Circuit notes and cross-circuit considerations

• The Ninth Circuit has had cases that triggered scolding from the Supreme Court regarding how it applied the five-year vs. 14