Matter of A-Y-S-, ID# 15171 (AAO Mar. 8, 2016) N-600 SUSTAINED Clarified DOB of Refugee with Syllabus
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE
U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Matter of A-Y-S-, ID# 15171 (AAO Mar. 8, 2016)**
N-600 Remanded in order to Clarify DOB of Refugee
1. Consultation with other Officers and/or independent research into specific country
conditions and related refugee processing is appropriate when the documentary record is
incomplete for the current adjudicatory purpose.
2. When the U.S. Department of State’s Reciprocity Schedule2 (in this case, Somalia)
indicates that documents are unavailable because there continues to be no recognized
competent civil authority to issue civil documents; that most records were destroyed
during civil war; and that there are no circumstances under which immigrant visa
applicants can reasonably be expected to recover original documents held by the former
government; then alternative evidence must be fully evaluated and objectively
considered, especially in the refugee/asylee context.
3. Under the above described (or similar) circumstances, it is appropriate to carefully
evaluate any and all evidence offered in support of asserted facts.
4. Among the potential evidence, including testimony and documents, to be considered are:
(a) Oral testimony of the applicant’s family and other knowledgeable witnesses;
(b) Affidavits of anyone with personal knowledge of asserted facts and events;
(c) The applicant’s complete immigration record (A-File), especially records created
during refugee processing, paying close attention, to look for any inconsistencies;
(d) A-Files of family members;
(e) Any and all credible, probative evidence establishing and/or supporting asserted
facts and/or events; and
(f) Facts outside and beyond the immigration record along with actions and events
occurring since entering the United States reflecting consistency of the assertions
made during the course of the present adjudication.
5. When the Director has failed to fully address all evidence offered and/or when the Director
fails to allow the applicant to supplement the record; it is appropriate to remand the case
for further development and to allow the Director to evaluate the entire record, in the first
6. It is the Applicant's burden to establish the claimed citizenship to the satisfaction of the
Secretary of Homeland Security, as delegated to USCIS. See INA § 341(a) [8 U.S.C. §
1452(a)]. USCIS has determined that it is satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence. See
8 C.F.R. § 341.2(c). Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010), followed.
1 This potential “holdings” list is not an official USCIS-AAO work product. It is merely a
suggestion provided for the convenience of the reader.
Sustained Applicant has Demonstrated Acceptable DOB
MATTER OF A-Y-S-
APPEAL OF WASHINGTON FIELD OFFICE DECISION
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office
DATE: MAR. 8, 2016
APPLICATION: FORM N-600, APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP
The Applicant, a native and citizen of Somalia, seeks a certificate of citizenship. Immigration and
Nationality Act (the Act) § 320, 8 U.S.C. § 1431. The Director, Washington Field Office, denied the
application. The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal will be sustained.
The Applicant was born in Somalia. The Applicant was granted refugee status, admitted to the
United States as a lawful permanent resident on September 19, 1997, and resided with parents upon
admission. The Applicant's mother's naturalization took place on July 6, 2005, and her father
naturalized on August 5, 2008. The Applicant seeks a certificate of citizenship pursuant to section
320 of the Act, as amended by the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 (the CCA), Pub. L. No. 106-395,
114 Stat. 1631 (Oct. 30, 2000).
In a March 20, 2015, decision, the Director determined that the Applicant did not derive U.S.
citizenship because she did not establish that she was under 18 years of age at the time of her
mother's naturalization in 2005, as documents indicated the Applicant was born on
We review these proceedings de novo. Because the Applicant was born abroad, she is presumed to be
an alien and bears the burden of establishing her claim to U.S. citizenship by a preponderance of
credible evidence. See Matter of Baires-Larios, 24 I&N Dec. 467, 468 (BIA 2008). The
"preponderance of the evidence" standard requires that the record demonstrate that the applicant's
claim is "probably true," based on the specific facts of each case. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N
Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (citing Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77,79-80 (Comm'r. 1989)).
To determine whether the Applicant derived citizenship from his mother, we apply "the law in effect
when [she] fulfilled the last requirement for derivative citizenship." Ashton v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d
95, 97 (2d Cir. 2005) (citing Rodriguez-Tejedor, 23 I&N Dec. 153, 163 (BIA 2001)). In this case,
the Applicant's mother became a naturalized U.S. citizen after the effective date of the CCA,
February 27, 2001. Thus, section 320 of the Act, as amended by the CCA, is applicable in her case.
Section 320 ofthe Act provides, in pertinent part:
(a) A child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a citizen of
the United States when all ofthe following conditions have been fulfilled:
(1) At least one parent of the child is a citizen of the United States,
whether by birth or naturalization.
(2) The child is under the age of eighteen years.
(3) The child is residing in the United States in the legal and physical
custody of the citizen parent pursuant to a lawful admission for
The record reflects that the Applicant was residing in the United States with her parents as a lawful
permanent resident before her 18th birthday and her mother naturalized on July 26, 2005. Therefore,
the Applicant has fulfilled the requirements in sections 320(a)(l) and (3) of the Act.
In accordance with section 320(a)(2) of the Act, the Applicant must also demonstrate that she was
under the age of 18 on the date of her mother's naturalization, July 26, 2005. Therefore, at issue in
this matter is whether the Applicant has established that she meets the requirements of section
320(a)(2) ofthe Act.
The Applicant asserts that she was born in Somalia on The Applicant's father
submitted an affidavit stating that the Applicant was born on this date around 8 p.m. in their home in
Somalia. The affidavit further states that the Applicant's family entered a refugee camp in
on 1991 and provided their family's biographical information to the
The Applicant's father contends that despite providing his family's correct dates of birth, the
camp assigned refugees, including their family members, January 1st dates of birth. The Applicant
asserts that as birth certificates from Somalia are unavailable, she provided affidavits to prove the
date and place ofher birth.
The U.S. Department of State Somalia Reciprocity Schedule indicates that documents are
unavailable as there continues to be no recognized competent civil authority to issue civil
documents, that most records were destroyed during the civil war, and that there are no
circumstances under which immigrant visa applicants can reasonably be expected to recover original
documents held by the former government of Somalia. In support of her claimed
birth date, the Applicant submitted affidavits from her father, her mother, another individual who
was present at the Applicant's birth, and an individual who received a telegram from the Applicant's
father upon the Applicant's birth.
The record establishes that the Applicant, her parents, and her three siblings were admitted to the
United States as refugees on September 17, 1997. The Applicant was issued a lawful permanent
resident card indicating a date of birth. The record reflects that the Applicant's
parents and three siblings were also assigned January 1st dates of birth, with variation only in their
respective birth years. The Applicant's parents' and one of her sister's naturalization certificates
currently bear January 1st dates ofbirth.
The Applicant's two other siblings, a sister and brother, submitted lawful permanent resident cards
indicating January 1st dates of birth. We note that the Applicant's sister was born in a
refugee camp, and her immigration file contains a birth notification form dated
Even so, the Applicant's sister's date of birth, as the rest of her family members, was recorded as
January 1st upon her admission to the United States, and subsequently corrected to
on her naturalization certificate. Similarly, the Applicant's brother's date of birth, recorded as
. was subsequently corrected to , on his naturalization certificate.
The Applicant submitted her Form N-600, Application for Certificate of Citizenship, on August 29,
2014. The record contains documentation indicating that the Applicant used her
date of birth for health insurance, from July 2001; for college admission and enrollment in 2006; and
in medical records in 2005. The Applicant asserts that the only time she has used her incorrect
, date of birth is upon the renewal of her lawful permanent resident card bearing that
As the Applicant cannot reasonably be expected to provide Somalian governmental documents, the
Applicant has presented credible, probative evidence establishing her date of birth as
The Applicant has submitted multiple affidavits of birth containing sufficient detail and basis
for personal knowledge; has established that the dates of birth for her entire family were listed,
several erroneously, as the same month and day for resettlement purposes; and that she has been
widely using her correct date of birth for years following her admission to the United States.
It is the Applicant's burden to establish the claimed citizenship by a preponderance of the evidence.
Section 341(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1452(a); 8 C.P.R. § 341.2(c). Here, that burden has been met.
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.
Cite as Matter ofA-Y-S-, ID# 15171 (AAO Mar. 8, 2016)