was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years
The fact that Cruz's mom was a resident of Canada prior to his birth doesn't matter. The fact that (5) uses the modifier "at any time" [prior to] doesn't make any difference.
What is the rule that you propose (a)(7) imposes? What interval between entering Canada and giving birth renders (a)(7) inoperable? One second? One week? One year?
If you read the case law, the parental residence requirement, unless stated otherwise (e.g., "after fourteen years of age") is "at any time prior to" the birth.
thanks
Cruz's mother would meet the "at any time prior to" requirement, but does not meet the "prior to" requirement as she was a resident of Canada prior to Cruz's birth.
------------------------------------------------
Based on what? Since when do time requirements not matter in federal law?
---------------------------------------------------------
If they're doing so while specifically interpreting the 1952 Law's Sec 301(a)7 to apply it to a case, then they're misquoting the law, aren't they?
Quite simply, the 1952 Law's Sec 301(a)7 does not state "at any time prior to."
"At any time" does not apply to that subsection, while applying to another.