Matter of A-S-A-, ID# 15167 (AAO Feb. 12, 2016) N-565 NO CHANGE TO DOB BECAUSE THERE IS NO COURT ORDER
MATTER OF A-S-A-
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office
DATE: FEB. 12, 2016
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION
APPLICATION: FORM N-565, APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT NATURALIZATION I
The Applicant, a native of Ethiopia and a naturalized citizen of the United States, seeks a
replacement Naturalization document. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 338, 8
U.S.C. § 1449. The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the application. The matter is now
before us on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed.
The Applicant seeks to have his Certificate of Naturalization corrected to reflect a change in his date
of birth from
On February 26, 2015, the Director reviewed the Applicant's record and determined that a correction
to his Certificate of Naturalization was not justified. Specifically, the Director noted that the
Applicant had claimed the date of birth on the certificate at the time of naturalization. The Form N-
565, Application for Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship Document, was denied accordingly.
On appeal, the Applicant requests that his Certificate ofNaturalization be changed to conform to his
correct date of birth. In support, the Applicant submits a copy of a June 17, 2014, U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services (USCIS) Policy Alert, a printout from the USCIS policy manual, and an
Order denying a motion to dismiss in a U.S. District Court for the case.
Section 338 of the Act provides the statutory authority relating to the contents of a Certificate of
Naturalization. In addition, the regulations regarding the execution and issuance of Certificates of
Naturalization are contained in 8 C.F.R. § 338.5, and provide, in part, that:
(a) Application. Whenever a Certificate of Naturalization has been delivered which does
not conform to the facts shown on the application for naturalization, or a clerical error
was made in preparing the certificate, an application for issuance of a corrected
certificate may be filed, without fee, in accordance with the form instructions.
* * *
(e) Data change. The correction will not be deemed to be justified where the naturalized
person later alleges that the name or date of birth which the applicant stated to be his
or her correct name or date of birth at the time of naturalization was not in fact his or
her name or date of birth at the time ofthe naturalization.
Based on the evidence in the record, the Applicant has not established that his Certificate of
Naturalization, which states that his date of birth is contains clerical errors
attributable to USCIS. Here, the birth date on the Applicant's Certificate ofNaturalization conforms
to the birth date stated in his Application to File Petition for Naturalization (Form N-400).
Additionally, we observe that the record contains other documents with the date
of birth, including: the Applicant's Petition for Naturalization (Form N-405); the Applicant's Form
I-590, Registration for Classification as Refugee; two Forms I-90, Application by Lawful Permanent
Resident for New Alien Registration Receipt Card; the Applicant's Form I-131, Application for
Issuance of Permit to Reenter the United States; the Applicant's Permit to Reenter the United States;
and two Forms G-325A, Biographic Information.
We acknowledge that the record includes a baptismal certificate showing the Applicant's date of
birth to be and a birth certificate registered in the Administrative
Zone of Ethiopia on January 2, 2013.
However, because the Applicant acknowledged his birth date as on his
naturalization application and there was no clerical error in the preparation of the Applicant's
certificate, USCIS has no authority to change the Applicant's Certificate of Naturalization. See 8
C.P.R. § 338.5.
On appeal, the Applicant, through counsel, submits a USCIS Policy Alert memorandum, PA-2014-
006, dated June 17, 2014, regarding changes to dates of birth and names on certificates of
citizenship. We note that this particular memorandum applies to certificates of citizenship, and not
to certificates of naturalization. We also note that the policy memorandum states that the date of
birth on certificates of citizenship can be changed if a U.S. state court order recognizes the new date
of birth; in this particular case, the Applicant has not presented any evidence that a U.S. state court
recognized the change in his date of birth.
In addition, the Applicant, through counsel, submits a copy of an unpublished decision by the U.S.
District Court for the in which the court held that the certificate of
naturalization for the plaintiff be reissued to reflect her true date of birth. First, we note that we are
not bound by unpublished decisions. Second, even if this case were binding, the Applicant does not
reside within the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the And finally, in
the Boiko case, a U.S. district court ordered the change of the date of birth on the certificate of
naturalization. In this particular case, there is no court order, thus we are bound by the regulation at
8 C.P.R. § 338.5.
In application proceedings, it is the Applicant's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
Cite as Matter ofA-S-A-, ID# 15167 (AAO Feb. 12, 2016)