Whether the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause prohibits a state court from rejecting a foreign will that was validly executed and probated in another country, thereby denying a dual citizen's vested property rights of inheritance

No question identified. : APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI To the Honorable Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jv., Circuit Justice for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2101(c) and Supreme Court Rules 13.5, 22, and 30.3, Applicant Alfonso E. Chavez Ayub respectfully requests that the time to file a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in this case be extended by 46 days, to and including September 8, 2025. On June 21, 2024, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth District of Texas entered its judgment and issued its opinion. See App. 1. On October 4, 2024, the Supreme Court of Texas denied Applicant's petition for review of the judgment of the Highth District Court of Appeals. See App. 2. On April 25, 2025, the Supreme Court of Texas denied Applicant’s motion for rehearing of the Supreme Court’s denial of his petition for review. See App. 3. Absent an extension of time, the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari will expire on July 24, 2025. Applicant is filing this application at least ten days before that date. This Court would have jurisdiction over the judgment of the Supreme Court of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1257. A 1997 will executed in Texas by the deceased, a dual citizen of the United States and México, was probated in Texas. To assert his property rights of inheritance, Applicant introduced into the proceedings, at the direction of the Mexican court, a 2005 will executed by the deceased in México; the 2005 will revoked the prior will and redirected the distribution of the deceased’s property to Applicant and his two sisters. The probate court 1 concluded that the introduction of the 2005 will, validated by the Mexican courts and admissible under Texas law, was nevertheless frivolous, and rejected the 2005 will. This rejection, upheld by the Texas Kighth District Court of Appeals, abridged Applicant’s vested property rights of inheritance and violated his due process rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 560 U.S. 702 (2010). Applicant asserts that 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b) may apply to this case. In pursuance of Supreme Court Rule 29.4(c), Applicant has served the Attorney General of Texas, because the constitutionality of the Texas Estate Code has been drawn into question by the decision of the Texas Eighth District Court of Appeals. That court ruled that a foreign will could not be entered into probate in the state of Texas where a deceased was domiciled in the state of Texas prior to death. As applied by the court of appeals, Texas Estate Code § 501.001 bars executors from probating wills where the deceased owned property in Texas, but had executed a will in another state or country. Whether Texas law was correctly applied by the court of appeals raises a substantial constitutional question with farreaching implications for the property and property interests of both citizens of the United States and dual citizens, and whether such interests can be denied without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The appellate court further upheld sanctions against Applicant, a dual citizen who followed a Mexican court’s directive to serve notice in Texas. This presents serious constitutional concerns under the Supremacy Clause, principles of international comity, and treaty obligations under international law, e.g., the Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents, Oct. 5, 1961, 527 U.N.T.S. 9 4 189, and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Apr. 24, 1963, 21 U.S.T. 77, 596 U.N.T.S. 261. Applicant is a third-year law student and research assistant at Creighton University School of Law. He is pursuing his claims in the present case pro se while simultaneously handling his law school workload, managing his 26-year business technology and management consulting practic