AAO N-600 decisions 2010

Latest Non-Precedent USCIS AAO N-600 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov

2010

Jan042010_01E2309.pdf Sustained 1



Jan122010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 4

Jan132010_01E2309.pdf1 Rejected as Untimely 5


JAN152010_02E2309.pdf2 Remanded to Seek 7

Passport Revocation 8





Jan212010_01E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely 13

Jan212010_02E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely 14



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.

http://www.uscis.gov/err/E2%20-%20Applications%20for%20Certification%20of%20Citizenship/Decisions_Issued_in_2010/Jan042010_01E2309.pdf






http://www.uscis.gov/err/E2%20-%20Applications%20for%20Certification%20of%20Citizenship/Decisions_Issued_in_2010/JAN152010_02E2309.pdf










2010


Jan272010_01E2309.pdf3 Earlier Appeal 18

Dismissed & This 19

Motion Dismissed 20


Feb012010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 22

Feb022010_01E2309.pdf4 Sustained 23

Feb162010_01E2309.pdf5 Dismissed 24

Feb172010_01E2309.pdf6 Remanded for Further 25

Fact-Finding & 26

Consultation with DOS 27



Feb172010_04E2309.pdf7 Denial Affirmed 30


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”.




http://www.uscis.gov/err/E2%20-%20Applications%20for%20Certification%20of%20Citizenship/Decisions_Issued_in_2010/Feb012010_01E2309.pdf









2010



Feb192010_01E2309.pdf9 Sustained 34

Feb242010_01E2309.pdf Sustained 35


Feb252010_02E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely 37



Feb252010_05E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely 40

Mar022010_01E2309.pdf Sustained 41


Mar062010_01E2309.pdf11 Earlier Appeal Rejected 43

as Untimely & This 44

Motion Rejected as 45

Untimely 46

Mar062010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed 47

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?










http://www.uscis.gov/err/E2%20-%20Applications%20for%20Certification%20of%20Citizenship/Decisions_Issued_in_2010/Mar022010_01E2309.pdf





2010





Mar162010_01E2309.pdf Denial Withdrawn, 52

Application Approved 53

Mar162010_02E2309.pdf12 Dismissed 54

Mar172010_01E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely 55


Mar252010_01E2309.pdf13 Sustained 57

7 FAM 1133.3-3(a)(2) states, in pertinent part that: 58

(2) Naturalized citizens may count any time they spent 59

in the United States or its outlying possessions both 60

before and after being naturalized, regardless of their 61

status. Even citizens who, prior to lawful entry and 62

naturalization, had spent time in the United States 63

illegally could include that time. [There is some 64

debate as to whether illegal time counts. There was no 65

illegal time at issue in this case.] 66

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.











2010



Mar252010_04E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely, 69

Remanded to Treat as 70

a Motion to Reopen and 71

Reconsider 72


Mar302010_01E2309.pdf Remanded to Seek 74


Mar302010_02E2309.pdf14 Director’s Decision 76

Withdrawn, Appeal 77

Dismissed, without 78

prejudice 79

Mar302010_03E2309.pdf15 Sustained 80


Apr012010_01E2309.pdf16 Sustained 82

Apr022010_01E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely 83

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.









http://www.uscis.gov/err/E2%20-%20Applications%20for%20Certification%20of%20Citizenship/Decisions_Issued_in_2010/Apr012010_01E2309.pdf



2010

Apr022010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed 84










Apr192010_01E2309.pdf19 1st N-600 denied, No 94

Appeal, 2nd N-600 95

Treated as Motion, 96

Denied, This Appeal 97

Rejected as Untimely 98


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














2010








May032010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 107

May032010_02E2309.pdf22 N-600 was Denied Due 108

to Abandonment, Appeal 109

Rejected as Untimeley, 110

Remanded to Treat as a 111

Motion to Reopen 112

May042010_01E2309.pdf23 Dismissed 113

May042010_02E2309.pdf Remanded to Seek 114



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.








http://www.uscis.gov/err/E2%20-%20Applications%20for%20Certification%20of%20Citizenship/Decisions_Issued_in_2010/May032010_01E2309.pdf






2010

May042010_04E2309.pdf Denial Withdrawn, 117

Appeal Sustained, 118

Application Approved 119

May052010_01E2309.pdf Sustained 120

May052010_02E2309.pdf24 Sustained 121


May062010_01E2309.pdf25 Appeal was Rejected as 123

Untimely, This Motion 124

Dismissed 125


May062010_03E2309.pdf26 Summarily Dismissed 127

May062010_04E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely 128



24

Footnote #1 in Original: The applicant's 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 applicant's

appeal fails to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the field office director's

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.












2010




May172010_03E2309.pdf31 Appeal was Dismissed, 134

1st Motion Dismissed, 135

This Motion Dismissed 136








29

Footnote #1 in Original: The record also indicates that the instant application for a certificate of

citizenship was filed after the applicant's adoptive father's 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 director's decision stating that his

incarceration prevents him from submitting evidence of his father's 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.













2010




May242010_01E2309.pdf33 Reopened Sua Sponte 147

per Settlement 148

Agreement, Application 149

Approved 150



May252010_03E2309.pdf Rejected as Improperly 153

Filed—No G-28 & No 154

Response to Request 155

Jun012010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 156

Jun012010_02E2309.pdf34 Dismissed 157

Jun022010_01E2309.pdf35 Rejected as Untimely 158

Jun022010_02E2309.pdf Sustained 159


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 applicant's paternity had been established and he consequently could not derive citizenship solely

through his mother under former section 321 of the Act.”








http://www.uscis.gov/err/E2%20-%20Applications%20for%20Certification%20of%20Citizenship/Decisions_Issued_in_2010/Jun012010_01E2309.pdf






2010








Jun182010_03E2309.pdf 1st Appeal Summarily 168

Dismissed, MTR 169

Granted, Appeal 170

Dismissed on Merits 171

Jun242010_01E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely 172


Jun242010_03E2309.pdf Summarily Dismissed 174



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).















2010


Jun282010_03E2309.pdf39 Sustained 178

Jun292010_01E2309.pdf40 Sustained 179




Jul012010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 183



Jul132010_02E2309.pdf Summarily Dismissed 186




Jul152010_01E2309.pdf Remanded for Further 190

Fact-Finding 191


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.







http://www.uscis.gov/err/E2%20-%20Applications%20for%20Certification%20of%20Citizenship/Decisions_Issued_in_2010/Jul012010_01E2309.pdf










2010




Jul192010_01E2309.pdf Sustained 196



Jul212010_01E2309.pdf 41 Sustained 199


Jul222010_02E2309.pdf Summarily Dismissed 201

Jul222010_03E2309.pdf Sustained, Remanded 202

for Oath for N-600K 203

Jul222010_04E2309.pdf Sustained, Remanded 204

for Oath for N-600K 205






41

This one could be a good precedent!


















2010




Aug032010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 214


Aug042010_01E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely 216



Aug052010_01E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely, 219

Remanded, to Treat as 220


Aug092010_01E2309.pdf42 Dismissed 222

Aug092010_02E2309.pdf Sustained 223





42

Parents’ re-married quashed derivation eligibility under INA § 321(a)(3).




http://www.uscis.gov/err/E2%20-%20Applications%20for%20Certification%20of%20Citizenship/Decisions_Issued_in_2010/Aug032010_01E2309.pdf













2010

Aug132010_01E2309.pdf43 Rejected as Untimely, 228



Aug132010_02E2309.pdf Summarily Dismissed 231




Aug192010_01E2309.pdf44 Dismissed 235






Aug242010_04E2309.pdf45 Appeal was Dismissed, 241

This Motion Rejected as 242

Untimely 243


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.















2010

Aug242010_06E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely, 245



Aug252010_01E2309.pdf Remanded to Seek 248








An Additional Decision of Interest: 256

Aug102007_01E2309.pdf Rejected 257

258

DISCUSSION: The district director, Seattle, Washington , denied the 259

application . The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 260

(AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected . 261

262

The district director concluded that the applicant had abandoned his Form N-263

600, Application for Certificate of Citizenship (Form N-600 Application) by 264

failing to respond to requests for additional evidence in his case. The Form 265

N-600 application was denied accordingly. 266

267

On appeal , the applicant asserts that he submitted a CIS change of address 268

form prior to September 2006. The applicant asserts that he did not receive 269

the district director's September 6, 2006, Request for Evidence (RFE), 270











2010

because it was erroneously sent to his previous address. 1 The applicant asks 271

for further information about the CIS requested evidence, and he asks for the 272

opportunity to have his Form N-600 application adjudicated. 273

274

Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations (8 C.F.R.) § 103.2(b) (13) states 275

in pertinent part: 276

277

[If] all requested initial evidence and requested additional evidence is 278

not submitted by the required date, the application or petition shall be 279

considered abandoned and, accordingly, shall be denied. 280

281

The regulation provides in pertinent part at 8 C.F .R. § 103.2(b) (15) that: 282

283

[A] denial due to abandonment may not be appealed, but an applicant 284

or petitioner may file a motion to reopen under Sec. 103.5. 285

Withdrawal or denial due to abandonment does not preclude the filing 286

of a new application or petition with a new fee. 287

288

In the present matter, the district director determined that the applicant's 289

Form N-600 application was abandoned. Under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l5), a 290

denial due to abandonment cannot be appealed to the AAO. The applicant's 291

appeal must therefore be rejected. 292

293

ORDER: The appeal is rejected. 294

1. It is noted that the record of proceedings does not contain a change of 295

address form. 296

WOW! Totally mishandles from the start. Denial for failure to 297

prosecute (abandonment) is prohibited under 8 CFR § 341.6! ALL 298

Certificate of Citizenship cases have Appeal Rights! After appeal period 299

expires only Motions may be filed. No subsequent N-600s are allowed, 300

only appeals and motion. HOWEVER, there is a statutory Judicial 301

Review available by filing a Petition for Declaratory Judgment of U.S. 302

Nationality (or Citizenship) in a U.S. District Court under INA § 360(a) 303

[8 U.S.C. § 1503(a)] and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that AAO never 304

advises anyone about as required by 8 CFR §§ 103.3(a)(1)(i) and 341.6. 305

Education

AAO N-600 decisions 2010