Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
i
 
**Non-Precedent Decision1
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE
U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELA...
(b)(6)
U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
MATTER OF A-Y-S-
APPEAL OF WASHINGTON FIELD OFFICE DECISION
Non-Precedent...
(b)(6)
Matter ofA-Y-S-
(1) At least one parent of the child is a citizen of the United States,
whether by birth or natural...
(b)(6)
Matter ofA-Y-S-
refugee camp, and her immigration file contains a birth notification form dated
Even so, the Applic...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Matter of A-Y-S-, ID# 15171 (AAO Mar. 8, 2016) N-600 SUSTAINED Clarified DOB of Refugee with Syllabus

361 views

Published on

Matter of A-Y-S-, ID# 15171 (AAO Mar. 8, 2016) N-600 SUSTAINED Clarified DOB of Refugee with Syllabus

Published in: News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Matter of A-Y-S-, ID# 15171 (AAO Mar. 8, 2016) N-600 SUSTAINED Clarified DOB of Refugee with Syllabus

  1. 1. i   **Non-Precedent Decision1 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 instance. 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. 2 https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/fees/reciprocity-by-country.html Sustained Applicant has Demonstrated Acceptable DOB
  2. 2. (b)(6) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 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:
  3. 3. (b)(6) Matter ofA-Y-S- (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 permanent residence. 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 2
  4. 4. (b)(6) Matter ofA-Y-S- 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 same date. 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) 3

×