Latest Non-Precedent USCIS AAO N-600 2010 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov 1 Jan042010_01E2309.pdf Sustained 2 Jan042010_02E2309.pdf Sustained 3 Jan042010_03E2309.pdf Sustained 4 Jan122010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 5 Jan132010_01E2309.pdf1 Rejected as Untimely 6 Jan152010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 7 JAN152010_02E2309.pdf2 Remanded to Seek 8 Passport Revocation 9 Jan152010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed10 Jan152010_04E2309.pdf Dismissed11 Jan152010_05E2309.pdf Dismissed12 Jan202010_01E2309.pdf Sustained13 Jan212010_01E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely14 Jan212010_02E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely15 Jan212010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed16 Jan252010_01E2309.pdf Sustained 1 This case along with others were erroneously processed. Rejection as untimely is inappropriate for an N- 600. See 8 CFR § 341.6. 2 This case is an example of the errors made far too frequently by the State Department’s under-trained passport adjudicators.
Latest Non-Precedent USCIS AAO N-600 2010 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov17 Jan262010_01E2309.pdf Sustained18 Jan272010_01E2309.pdf3 Earlier Appeal19 Dismissed & This20 Motion Dismissed21 Jan292010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed22 Feb012010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed23 Feb022010_01E2309.pdf4 Sustained24 Feb162010_01E2309.pdf5 Dismissed25 Feb172010_01E2309.pdf6 Remanded for Further26 Fact-Finding &27 Consultation with DOS28 Feb172010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed29 Feb172010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed30 Feb172010_04E2309.pdf7 Denial Affirmed31 Feb172010_05E2309.pdf Dismissed 3 This case supports the proposition that USCIS must improve its Appeal and Motion Rights Notification. The meritless Motion following the Dismissed Appeal should never have been filed and indeed if the applicant had been properly informed of his statutory Judicial Review path, he would likely have taken that course of action. 4 Discussion of disputed U.S.-Mexico border (Horcon Tract). 5 There must be a typo in this decision. According to the dates, the father naturalized in December after the mother had died in October and the child was 16 years old and an LPR. The applicant would derive from his widowed father under INA § 321(a)(2) as a surviving parent. 6 Applicant may have been issued a Passport by mistake, it is unclear. 7 Director’s Decision was Certified to AAO before being issued. Applicant born in American Samoa was issued a Passport which was invalidated. The Passport is appropriate BUT must be annotated such that “the bearer is a non-citizen national”.
Latest Non-Precedent USCIS AAO N-600 2010 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov32 Feb172010_06E2309.pdf Dismissed33 Feb182010_01E2309.pdf8 Dismissed34 Feb192010_01E2309.pdf9 Sustained35 Feb242010_01E2309.pdf Sustained36 Feb252010_01E2309.pdf10 Dismissed37 Feb252010_02E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely38 Feb252010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed39 Feb252010_04E2309.pdf Dismissed40 Feb252010_05E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely41 Mar022010_01E2309.pdf Sustained42 Mar022010_02E2309.pdf Sustained43 Mar062010_01E2309.pdf11 Earlier Appeal Rejected44 as Untimely & This45 Motion Rejected as46 Untimely47 Mar062010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed 8 The child was paroled into the U.S. in 1978 and his parents never adjusted his status. Both parents naturalized but that did nothing for their child who was never an LPR. He’s probably been deported by now. 9 It all boiled down to how to weigh the evidence. 10 Foolish appeal. An adopted child CANNOT acquire USC at birth through an ADOPTIVE parent but ONLY through a BIOLOGICAL parent! 11 Has Nobody at AAO EVER actually read the controlling regulation at 8 CFR § 341.6?
Latest Non-Precedent USCIS AAO N-600 2010 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov48 Mar062010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed49 Mar062010_04E2309.pdf Dismissed50 Mar062010_05E2309.pdf Dismissed51 Mar102010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed52 Mar162010_01E2309.pdf Denial Withdrawn,53 Application Approved54 Mar162010_02E2309.pdf12 Dismissed55 Mar172010_01E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely56 Mar192010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed57 Mar252010_01E2309.pdf13 Sustained58 7 FAM 1133.3-3(a)(2) states, in pertinent part that:59 (2) Naturalized citizens may count any time they spent60 in the United States or its outlying possessions both61 before and after being naturalized, regardless of their62 status. Even citizens who, prior to lawful entry and63 naturalization, had spent time in the United States64 illegally could include that time. [There is some65 debate as to whether illegal time counts. There was no66 illegal time at issue in this case.] 12 This was an erroneous decision. The applicant is eligible for resumption of citizenship under INA § 324(d) and msut subscribe to the oath and get a specially annotated certificate of citizenship denoting the period when she was NOT a USC. 13 On appeal, the applicant, through counsel, maintains that the director failed to properly consider the evidence submitted.
Latest Non-Precedent USCIS AAO N-600 2010 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov67 Mar252010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed68 Mar252010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed69 Mar252010_04E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely,70 Remanded to Treat as71 a Motion to Reopen and72 Reconsider73 Mar292010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed74 Mar302010_01E2309.pdf Remanded to Seek75 Passport Revocation76 Mar302010_02E2309.pdf14 Director’s Decision77 Withdrawn, Appeal78 Dismissed, without79 prejudice80 Mar302010_03E2309.pdf15 Sustained81 Mar302010_04E2309.pdf Sustained82 Apr012010_01E2309.pdf16 Sustained83 Apr022010_01E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely 14 AAO CAN get it right sometimes! Footnote #1 in original: The AAO notes that the applicant is only nine years old. His father therefore still has the opportunity to agree to financially support him, and to acknowledge him, in accordance with the requirements of section 309(a)(3) and (4) of the Act. Should he do so, the applicant may again pursue his citizenship claim by filing a motion to reopen in accordance with 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.5 and 341.6. 15 The evidence was sufficient. It seems that the local office either did not properly review the case before forwarding the Appeal to the AAO or did not properly weigh the evidence submitted on appeal. In either case it is a training issue. 16 Id.
Latest Non-Precedent USCIS AAO N-600 2010 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov84 Apr022010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed85 Apr022010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed86 Apr022010_04E2309.pdf Dismissed87 Apr082010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed88 Apr152010_01E2309.pdf17 Sustained89 Apr162010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed90 Apr162010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed91 Apr162010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed92 Apr162010_04E2309.pdf Dismissed93 Apr162010_05E2309.pdf18 Sustained94 Apr192010_01E2309.pdf19 1st N-600 denied, No95 Appeal, 2nd N-60096 Treated as Motion,97 Denied, This Appeal98 Rejected as Untimely99 Apr272010_01E2309.pdf20 Sustained 17 Once again, the case hinged on a proper consideration of the evidence already in the record. 18 This one was a legal issue as to a foreign legitimation law. 19 Once again, AAO did not apprise the applicant of legal right to Judicial Review. 20 Supra at FN 15
Latest Non-Precedent USCIS AAO N-600 2010 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov100 Apr272010_02E2309.pdf21 Sustained101 Apr272010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed102 Apr272010_04E2309.pdf Dismissed103 Apr272010_05E2309.pdf Dismissed104 Apr272010_06E2309.pdf Dismissed105 Apr282010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed106 Apr282010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed107 May032010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed108 May032010_02E2309.pdf22 N-600 was Denied Due109 to Abandonment, Appeal110 Rejected as Untimeley,111 Remanded to Treat as a112 Motion to Reopen113 May042010_01E2309.pdf23 Dismissed114 May042010_02E2309.pdf Remanded to Seek115 Passport Revocation116 May042010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed 21 This one was a legal issue as to a legal and physical custody determined via proper application of Matter of Harris, 15 I&N Dec. 39 (BIA 1970). 22 The District Director is prohibited from denying for failure to prosecute. Rejecting as untimely is improper for any N-600 at any stage. Remand should not have been required because the case should not have been forwarded to AAO. 23 Denial hinged on legal custody. AAO mentions that the N-600 was filed simultaneously with mom’s N- 400 but does not address the issue any further. That is an issue that needs clarification but it was not even addressed in dicta.
Latest Non-Precedent USCIS AAO N-600 2010 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov117 May042010_04E2309.pdf Denial Withdrawn,118 Appeal Sustained,119 Application Approved120 May052010_01E2309.pdf Sustained121 May052010_02E2309.pdf24 Sustained122 May052010_03E2309.pdf Sustained123 May062010_01E2309.pdf25 Appeal was Rejected as124 Untimely, This Motion125 Dismissed126 May062010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed127 May062010_03E2309.pdf26 Summarily Dismissed128 May062010_04E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely129 May072010_01E2309.pdf27 Sustained130 May112010_01E2309.pdf28 Sustained 24 Footnote #1 in Original: The applicants first Form N-600, Application for Certificate of Citizenship, was denied in 2007. A subsequent Motion to Reopen and Reconsider was dismissed. In 2009, the applicant, through counsel, attempted to file a new Form N-600 but was instructed to file a Motion to Reopen and Reconsider. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 341.6 provides that a second Form N-600 must be rejected and the applicant instructed to submit a motion to reopen or reconsider. [Applicant benefited from CCA (2000) and automatically acquired on the effective date.] 25 This type of processing is improper and is akin to price gouging. 26 This was the proper way to handle MANY of the ones that were Rejected as Untimely. The applicants appeal fails to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the field office directors decision. The appeal is therefore summarily dismissed. However, still fails to inform of Judicial Review. 27 Once again, the case hinged on a proper consideration of the evidence already in the record. 28 Hinged on a legal matter pertaining to divorces that do no specify an award of custody.
Latest Non-Precedent USCIS AAO N-600 2010 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov131 May132010_01E2309.pdf29 Dismissed132 May172010_01E2309.pdf30 Dismissed133 May172010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed134 May172010_03E2309.pdf31 Appeal was Dismissed,135 1st Motion Dismissed,136 This Motion Dismissed137 May182010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed138 May182010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed139 May182010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed140 May182010_04E2309.pdf32 Dismissed141 May182010_05E2309.pdf Sustained142 May182010_06E2309.pdf Sustained143 May192010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 29 Footnote #1 in Original: The record also indicates that the instant application for a certificate of citizenship was filed after the applicants adoptive fathers Form I- 130, petition for alien relative, was denied for failure to establish that the applicant had resided with his adoptive father for at least two years. This issue is also relevant to the instant application. However, because the applicant is now over the age of 18, we do not reach the issue of whether or not he has met the requirements of sections 10 l(b)(l)(E)(i) and 322(c) of the Act. 30 “.... On appeal, the applicant seeks reconsideration of the directors decision stating that his incarceration prevents him from submitting evidence of his fathers U.S. residence. ....” 31 If AAO never tells someone of their Judicial Review option and continues to tell folks to that they may file another Motion, they may continue to do so until the end of time. THIS Dismissal once again told the applicant ONLY about filing another Motion! 32 Bogus nunc pro tunc lower court (state and family court) orders will have no effect to circumvent federal immigration and nationality law. The BIA won’t accept such orders for Removal cases as they relate to criminal convictions, therefore AAO should not accept them for Benefits cases.
Latest Non-Precedent USCIS AAO N-600 2010 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov144 May192010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed145 May212010_01E2309.pdf Sustained146 May212010_02E2309.pdf Sustained147 May242010_01E2309.pdf33 Reopened Sua Sponte148 per Settlement149 Agreement, Application150 Approved151 May252010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed152 May252010_02E2309.pdf Sustained153 May252010_03E2309.pdf Rejected as Improperly154 Filed—No G-28 & No155 Response to Request156 Jun012010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed157 Jun012010_02E2309.pdf34 Dismissed158 Jun022010_01E2309.pdf35 Rejected as Untimely159 Jun022010_02E2309.pdf Sustained160 Jun022010_03E2309.pdf Sustained 33 Lumbard v. DHS, et al., 09-CV-0107 (C.D. Cal 2009) INA § 301(f) foundling. 34 This is a strange decision. The analysis of whether or not the child resided with his naturalized father was not established however, AAO ceases to inquire about the pertinent period just because he has reached the 18th birthday. So what! That only ends the inquiry for § 322, not § 320. There is not statement confirming that the child DID NOT reside with his father at the pertinent time. 35 At least this decision included a summation. “... The field office director determined, in relevant part, that the applicants paternity had been established and he consequently could not derive citizenship solely through his mother under former section 321 of the Act.”
Latest Non-Precedent USCIS AAO N-600 2010 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov161 Jun022010_04E2309.pdf Sustained162 Jun042010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed163 Jun042010_02E2309.pdf36 Dismissed164 Jun092010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed165 Jun172010_01E2309.pdf Sustained166 Jun182010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed167 Jun182010_02E2309.pdf37 Dismissed168 Jun182010_03E2309.pdf 1st Appeal Summarily169 Dismissed, MTR170 Granted, Appeal171 Dismissed on Merits172 Jun242010_01E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely173 Jun242010_02E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely174 Jun242010_03E2309.pdf Summarily Dismissed175 Jun242010_04E2309.pdf Dismissed176 Jun282010_01E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely 36 Father’s “less than honorable” discharge casts doubt on his “constructive presence and residence” needed to transmit USC. AAO erred on the side of caution and did not accept it. Too bad AAO did not advise of Judicial Review Rights, maybe the court could have settled the question. 37 Entered as IR-4, Orphan to be Adopted. There was NO final adoption, therefore, could not have been compliance with former INA § 322, but aged-out in many years earlier (~1980).
Latest Non-Precedent USCIS AAO N-600 2010 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov177 Jun282010_02E2309.pdf38 Dismissed178 Jun282010_03E2309.pdf39 Sustained179 Jun292010_01E2309.pdf40 Sustained180 Jun292010_02E2309.pdf Sustained181 Jun292010_03E2309.pdf Sustained182 Jun302010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed183 Jul012010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed184 Jul082010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed185 Jul132010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed186 Jul132010_02E2309.pdf Summarily Dismissed187 Jul132010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed188 Jul132010_04E2309.pdf Dismissed189 Jul142010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed190 Jul152010_01E2309.pdf Remanded for Further191 Fact-Finding192 Jul152010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed 38 The USC mother was incapable of meeting residence needed to transmit USC because she was married and gave birth too young to meet the “5 years after age 16” part of the requirement. 39 THIS case NEVER should have been sent to AAO! A copy of the mother’s Naturalization Certificate was missing but was submitted with the appeal. Miami was sloppy in processing the case. USCIS should have gotten the mother’s A-file per 8 CFR § 320.3(b)(2). 40 It boiled down to proper evaluation of the evidence.
Latest Non-Precedent USCIS AAO N-600 2010 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov193 Jul152010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed194 Jul152010_04E2309.pdf Dismissed195 Jul152010_05E2309.pdf Dismissed196 Jul192010_01E2309.pdf Sustained197 Jul192010_02E2309.pdf Sustained198 Jul202010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed199 Jul212010_01E2309.pdf 41 Sustained200 Jul222010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed201 Jul222010_02E2309.pdf Summarily Dismissed202 Jul222010_03E2309.pdf Sustained, Remanded203 for Oath for N-600K204 Jul222010_04E2309.pdf Sustained, Remanded205 for Oath for N-600K206 Jul302010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed207 Jul302010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed208 Jul302010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed209 Jul302010_04E2309.pdf Dismissed210 Jul302010_05E2309.pdf Dismissed 41 This one could be a good precedent!
Latest Non-Precedent USCIS AAO N-600 2010 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov211 Jul302010_06E2309.pdf Sustained212 Jul302010_07E2309.pdf Dismissed213 Jul302010_08E2309.pdf Dismissed214 Aug032010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed215 Aug032010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed216 Aug042010_01E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely217 Aug042010_02E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely218 Aug042010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed219 Aug052010_01E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely,220 Remanded, to Treat as221 Motion to Reopen222 Aug092010_01E2309.pdf42 Dismissed223 Aug092010_02E2309.pdf Sustained224 Aug102010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed225 Aug112010_01E2309.pdf Sustained226 Aug112010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed227 Aug112010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed 42 Parents’ re-married quashed derivation eligibility under INA § 321(a)(3).
Latest Non-Precedent USCIS AAO N-600 2010 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov228 Aug132010_01E2309.pdf43 Rejected as Untimely,229 Remanded, to Treat as230 Motion to Reopen231 Aug132010_02E2309.pdf Summarily Dismissed232 Aug182010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed233 Aug182010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed234 Aug182010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed235 Aug192010_01E2309.pdf44 Dismissed236 Aug192010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed237 Aug202010_01E2309.pdf Sustained238 Aug242010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed239 Aug242010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed240 Aug242010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed241 Aug242010_04E2309.pdf45 Appeal was Dismissed,242 This Motion Rejected as243 Untimely244 Aug242010_05E2309.pdf Dismissed 43 This is an N-600K under INA § 322. No information about the child’s age is included and no urgency was indicated. 44 Two pages missing. 45 The Motion was without merit BUT AAO still has not informed anyone to of Judicial Review right, not even to get rid of them.
Latest Non-Precedent USCIS AAO N-600 2010 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov245 Aug242010_06E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely,246 Remanded, to Treat as247 Motion to Reopen248 Aug252010_01E2309.pdf Remanded to Seek249 Passport Revocation250 Aug252010_02E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely251 Aug252010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed252 Aug262010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed253 Aug262010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed254 Aug262010_03E2309.pdf Sustained255 Aug312010_02E2309.pdf Sustained256 An Additional Decision of Interest:257 Aug102007_01E2309.pdf Rejected258259 DISCUSSION: The district director, Seattle, Washington , denied the260 application . The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office261 (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected .262263 The district director concluded that the applicant had abandoned his Form N-264 600, Application for Certificate of Citizenship (Form N-600 Application) by265 failing to respond to requests for additional evidence in his case. The Form266 N-600 application was denied accordingly.267268 On appeal , the applicant asserts that he submitted a CIS change of address269 form prior to September 2006. The applicant asserts that he did not receive270 the district directors September 6, 2006, Request for Evidence (RFE),
Latest Non-Precedent USCIS AAO N-600 2010 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov271 because it was erroneously sent to his previous address. 1 The applicant asks272 for further information about the CIS requested evidence, and he asks for the273 opportunity to have his Form N-600 application adjudicated.274275 Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations (8 C.F.R.) § 103.2(b) (13) states276 in pertinent part:277278 [If] all requested initial evidence and requested additional evidence is279 not submitted by the required date, the application or petition shall be280 considered abandoned and, accordingly, shall be denied.281282 The regulation provides in pertinent part at 8 C.F .R. § 103.2(b) (15) that:283284 [A] denial due to abandonment may not be appealed, but an applicant285 or petitioner may file a motion to reopen under Sec. 103.5.286 Withdrawal or denial due to abandonment does not preclude the filing287 of a new application or petition with a new fee.288289 In the present matter, the district director determined that the applicants290 Form N-600 application was abandoned. Under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l5), a291 denial due to abandonment cannot be appealed to the AAO. The applicants292 appeal must therefore be rejected.293294 ORDER: The appeal is rejected. 1.295 It is noted that the record of proceedings does not contain a change of296 address form.297 WOW! Totally mishandles from the start. Denial for failure to298 prosecute (abandonment) is prohibited under 8 CFR § 341.6! ALL299 Certificate of Citizenship cases have Appeal Rights! After appeal period300 expires only Motions may be filed. No subsequent N-600s are allowed,301 only appeals and motion. HOWEVER, there is a statutory Judicial302 Review available by filing a Petition for Declaratory Judgment of U.S.303 Nationality (or Citizenship) in a U.S. District Court under INA § 360(a)304 [8 U.S.C. § 1503(a)] and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that AAO never305 advises anyone about as required by 8 CFR §§ 103.3(a)(1)(i) and 341.6.