Arthur-Price v. Blinken

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois
DecidedSeptember 7, 2023
Docket1:21-cv-03475
StatusUnknown

This text of Arthur-Price v. Blinken (Arthur-Price v. Blinken) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Arthur-Price v. Blinken, (N.D. Ill. 2023).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

MAAMEAMBA ARTHUR-PRICE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 21 C 3475 ) ANTONY BLINKEN, United States ) Secretary of State, ) ) Defendant. )

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, District Judge: Maameamba Arthur-Price applied for a passport and was denied on the ground that she is not a U.S. citizen. Arthur-Price has sued for a declaration of her U.S. citizenship, claiming she was born in Oakland, California in January 1980. That is, in fact, what Arthur-Price was told and believes. The government contends that Arthur- Price was born overseas and opposes her claim in this case. Arthur-Price's parents, Mrs. Mary Arthur and Rev. Kobena Korang Arthur, who were born in Ghana and are naturalized U.S. citizens, both say that Arthur-Price was, indeed, born in this country. The problem—and really, the reason for this lawsuit—is that they have told a different story in the past. This case is a good illustration of the aphorism, "Oh what a tangled web we weave / When first we practice to deceive!"1 Arthur-Price's parents—particularly her father—have put her in a very difficult spot: they

1 The quote is from Sir Walter Scott's Marmion. have effectively left her, if the government is right, as a person without a country (as the government's counsel pointed out during closing argument). The Court finds, however, that despite her parents' unfortunate misstatements, Arthur-Price has established by a preponderance of the evidence that she was, in fact, born in the United States. Arthur-Price's lawsuit originally included several claims, but the Court previously

dismissed all of them except her claim under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). See Arthur-Price v. Blinken, No. 21 C 3475, 2022 WL 1004415 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 4, 2022). Under 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a), "any person who is within the United States" that "claims a right or privilege as a national of the United States and is denied . . . upon the ground that he is not a national of the United States" may sue in district court "for a judgment declaring him to be a national of the United States." 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a). As indicated, Arthur-Price seeks a declaratory judgment that she is a U.S. citizen. The Court conducted a bench trial on May 31–June 1, 2023. This decision constitutes the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Facts The only issue at trial was whether Arthur-Price was born in Oakland, California as she contends. Arthur-Price, of course, has no firsthand knowledge of where she was born. To support her claim, she offered the testimony of her parents, Mrs. Mary Arthur and Rev. Kobena Korang Arthur, and two of Mrs. Arthur's friends, Norma Armstrong and Dr. Stephen Safo Sampah, who say they met Mrs. Arthur in California around the time she gave birth to Arthur-Price in California. A third friend, Nancy Eady, wrote a letter signed under penalty of perjury supporting Arthur-Price's claim but passed away before she could testify at trial. The sworn letter was admitted in evidence without objection. The government offered testimony from two witnesses, Joseph Kolb, Jr. and Matthew Knolle. Kolb is a U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer who testified regarding immigration policies and procedures at ports of entry. Knolle is a State Department special agent who investigated Arthur-Price's passport application. The Court finds the facts as follows, having made judgments regarding the

credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. A. Mrs. Arthur's first entry into the United States Rev. and Mrs. Arthur were both born in Ghana in the mid-1950s. Rev. Arthur holds several degrees, including two doctorates, and he served in the U.S. Navy as a chaplain for twenty-four years. Rev. and Mrs. Arthur are both naturalized U.S. citizens. They were married in Ghana about 40 years ago and have four children. The oldest was born at home in Ghana. The younger two were born in a hospital in Texas. Arthur- Price is the second oldest, born on January 12, 1980. The parties dispute whether Arthur-Price was born in Ghana or the United States.

Rev. and Mrs. Arthur testified that Mrs. Arthur's step-brother, Paul Dwumfoh, arranged for her to travel with him to the United States in 1979. Rev. Arthur testified that he did not come with them. Mrs. Arthur did not remember when during 1979 she entered the United States, but she did recall flying from Accra, Ghana to Oakland, California. She stated that she did not have any documentation in her own possession, such as a passport, visa, or birth certificate. She stated that she does not know how she was able to enter the United States; she testified that her brother handled all the arrangements for her. Rev. Arthur testified that in traditional Ghanaian culture, there is deference to elders and of women to men. Mrs. Arthur testified that, given this cultural norm, she felt obligated as a younger sister to defer to her older brother's decision to come to the United States. She also testified that under the cultural practice in Ghana at the time, Rev. Arthur would also be expected to defer to her brother because her brother was older than him. Rev. Arthur similarly testified that he deferred to Dwumfoh's decision and that Dwumfoh took care of all the arrangements for Mrs. Arthur to travel to

Oakland. Dwumfoh is now deceased. Mrs. Arthur testified that Dwumfoh had documentation showing their entry in 1979, but she did not see it. The record does not contain any documentation of her 1979 entry. CBP officer Kolb testified that every adult must present a valid passport to an immigration officer when arriving at a port of entry. If the person is entering the United States as a non-immigrant, the officer will also review the person's visa. If the documentation is proper, the person receives a Form I-94 and a stamp in the passport. But Kolb acknowledged that mistakes can be made and that there are multiple ways to evade this requirement. He also testified that security measures and inspection

standards in the United States were not as strict in the 1970s and 80s as they are today. He did not have any information about Mrs. Arthur's arrival to the United States. The Court notes that Kolb's testimony does not rule out the possibility that Dwumfoh was carrying, and presented, Mrs. Arthur's entry documentation. Mrs. Arthur testified that at the time she travelled to the United States, she did not know she was pregnant. She learned this sometime shortly after arriving. She testified that she was living with her brother and her brother's friend, Emmanuel Essell, in Oakland, California. Essell is also now deceased. In a sworn affidavit admitted into evidence without objection, Essell stated that he "used to go visit Paul's place often" and that Dwumfoh "was living with his sister, Mary Arthur." Def.'s Ex. A at 82. This suggests that Essell was not living with Dwomfoh as Mrs. Arthur had stated, at least not full-time. Essell's affidavit does, however, corroborate that he saw Mrs. Arthur pregnant in Oakland in 1979. Dr. Sampah, who testified at the bench trial, stated that he met Essell and Mrs. Arthur through a mutual friend at a Thanksgiving party in 1979. Dr.

Sampah testified that he thought Mrs. Arthur was pregnant and living with Essell at the time. While in Oakland, Mrs. Arthur testified, she attended First African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church. Through the church, Mrs. Arthur met Nancy Eady and Norman Armstrong, who became her friends. Mrs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Perez v. Brownell
356 U.S. 44 (Supreme Court, 1958)
Afroyim v. Rusk
387 U.S. 253 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Mohamed Mathin v. John F. Kerry
782 F.3d 804 (Seventh Circuit, 2015)
L. Xia v. Rex Tillerson
865 F.3d 643 (D.C. Circuit, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Arthur-Price v. Blinken, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arthur-price-v-blinken-ilnd-2023.