aao n-600 decisions 2010
TRANSCRIPT
Latest Non-Precedent USCIS AAO N-600 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov
2010
Jan042010_01E2309.pdf Sustained 1
Jan042010_02E2309.pdf Sustained 2
Jan042010_03E2309.pdf Sustained 3
Jan122010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 4
Jan132010_01E2309.pdf1 Rejected as Untimely 5
Jan152010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 6
JAN152010_02E2309.pdf2 Remanded to Seek 7
Passport Revocation 8
Jan152010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed 9
Jan152010_04E2309.pdf Dismissed 10
Jan152010_05E2309.pdf Dismissed 11
Jan202010_01E2309.pdf Sustained 12
Jan212010_01E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely 13
Jan212010_02E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely 14
Jan212010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed 15
Jan252010_01E2309.pdf Sustained 16
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 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov
2010
Jan262010_01E2309.pdf Sustained 17
Jan272010_01E2309.pdf3 Earlier Appeal 18
Dismissed & This 19
Motion Dismissed 20
Jan292010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 21
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_02E2309.pdf Dismissed 28
Feb172010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed 29
Feb172010_04E2309.pdf7 Denial Affirmed 30
Feb172010_05E2309.pdf Dismissed 31
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 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov
2010
Feb172010_06E2309.pdf Dismissed 32
Feb182010_01E2309.pdf8 Dismissed 33
Feb192010_01E2309.pdf9 Sustained 34
Feb242010_01E2309.pdf Sustained 35
Feb252010_01E2309.pdf10 Dismissed 36
Feb252010_02E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely 37
Feb252010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed 38
Feb252010_04E2309.pdf Dismissed 39
Feb252010_05E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely 40
Mar022010_01E2309.pdf Sustained 41
Mar022010_02E2309.pdf Sustained 42
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?
Latest Non-Precedent USCIS AAO N-600 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov
2010
Mar062010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed 48
Mar062010_04E2309.pdf Dismissed 49
Mar062010_05E2309.pdf Dismissed 50
Mar102010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 51
Mar162010_01E2309.pdf Denial Withdrawn, 52
Application Approved 53
Mar162010_02E2309.pdf12 Dismissed 54
Mar172010_01E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely 55
Mar192010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 56
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.
Latest Non-Precedent USCIS AAO N-600 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov
2010
Mar252010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed 67
Mar252010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed 68
Mar252010_04E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely, 69
Remanded to Treat as 70
a Motion to Reopen and 71
Reconsider 72
Mar292010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 73
Mar302010_01E2309.pdf Remanded to Seek 74
Passport Revocation 75
Mar302010_02E2309.pdf14 Director’s Decision 76
Withdrawn, Appeal 77
Dismissed, without 78
prejudice 79
Mar302010_03E2309.pdf15 Sustained 80
Mar302010_04E2309.pdf Sustained 81
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.
Latest Non-Precedent USCIS AAO N-600 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov
2010
Apr022010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed 84
Apr022010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed 85
Apr022010_04E2309.pdf Dismissed 86
Apr082010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 87
Apr152010_01E2309.pdf17 Sustained 88
Apr162010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 89
Apr162010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed 90
Apr162010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed 91
Apr162010_04E2309.pdf Dismissed 92
Apr162010_05E2309.pdf18 Sustained 93
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
Apr272010_01E2309.pdf20 Sustained 99
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 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov
2010
Apr272010_02E2309.pdf21 Sustained 100
Apr272010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed 101
Apr272010_04E2309.pdf Dismissed 102
Apr272010_05E2309.pdf Dismissed 103
Apr272010_06E2309.pdf Dismissed 104
Apr282010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 105
Apr282010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed 106
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
Passport Revocation 115
May042010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed 116
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 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov
2010
May042010_04E2309.pdf Denial Withdrawn, 117
Appeal Sustained, 118
Application Approved 119
May052010_01E2309.pdf Sustained 120
May052010_02E2309.pdf24 Sustained 121
May052010_03E2309.pdf Sustained 122
May062010_01E2309.pdf25 Appeal was Rejected as 123
Untimely, This Motion 124
Dismissed 125
May062010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed 126
May062010_03E2309.pdf26 Summarily Dismissed 127
May062010_04E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely 128
May072010_01E2309.pdf27 Sustained 129
May112010_01E2309.pdf28 Sustained 130
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.
Latest Non-Precedent USCIS AAO N-600 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov
2010
May132010_01E2309.pdf29 Dismissed 131
May172010_01E2309.pdf30 Dismissed 132
May172010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed 133
May172010_03E2309.pdf31 Appeal was Dismissed, 134
1st Motion Dismissed, 135
This Motion Dismissed 136
May182010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 137
May182010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed 138
May182010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed 139
May182010_04E2309.pdf32 Dismissed 140
May182010_05E2309.pdf Sustained 141
May182010_06E2309.pdf Sustained 142
May192010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 143
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.
Latest Non-Precedent USCIS AAO N-600 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov
2010
May192010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed 144
May212010_01E2309.pdf Sustained 145
May212010_02E2309.pdf Sustained 146
May242010_01E2309.pdf33 Reopened Sua Sponte 147
per Settlement 148
Agreement, Application 149
Approved 150
May252010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 151
May252010_02E2309.pdf Sustained 152
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
Jun022010_03E2309.pdf Sustained 160
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.”
Latest Non-Precedent USCIS AAO N-600 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov
2010
Jun022010_04E2309.pdf Sustained 161
Jun042010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 162
Jun042010_02E2309.pdf36 Dismissed 163
Jun092010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 164
Jun172010_01E2309.pdf Sustained 165
Jun182010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 166
Jun182010_02E2309.pdf37 Dismissed 167
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_02E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely 173
Jun242010_03E2309.pdf Summarily Dismissed 174
Jun242010_04E2309.pdf Dismissed 175
Jun282010_01E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely 176
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 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov
2010
Jun282010_02E2309.pdf38 Dismissed 177
Jun282010_03E2309.pdf39 Sustained 178
Jun292010_01E2309.pdf40 Sustained 179
Jun292010_02E2309.pdf Sustained 180
Jun292010_03E2309.pdf Sustained 181
Jun302010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 182
Jul012010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 183
Jul082010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 184
Jul132010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 185
Jul132010_02E2309.pdf Summarily Dismissed 186
Jul132010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed 187
Jul132010_04E2309.pdf Dismissed 188
Jul142010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 189
Jul152010_01E2309.pdf Remanded for Further 190
Fact-Finding 191
Jul152010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed 192
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 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov
2010
Jul152010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed 193
Jul152010_04E2309.pdf Dismissed 194
Jul152010_05E2309.pdf Dismissed 195
Jul192010_01E2309.pdf Sustained 196
Jul192010_02E2309.pdf Sustained 197
Jul202010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 198
Jul212010_01E2309.pdf 41 Sustained 199
Jul222010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 200
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
Jul302010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 206
Jul302010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed 207
Jul302010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed 208
Jul302010_04E2309.pdf Dismissed 209
Jul302010_05E2309.pdf Dismissed 210
41
This one could be a good precedent!
Latest Non-Precedent USCIS AAO N-600 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov
2010
Jul302010_06E2309.pdf Sustained 211
Jul302010_07E2309.pdf Dismissed 212
Jul302010_08E2309.pdf Dismissed 213
Aug032010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 214
Aug032010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed 215
Aug042010_01E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely 216
Aug042010_02E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely 217
Aug042010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed 218
Aug052010_01E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely, 219
Remanded, to Treat as 220
Motion to Reopen 221
Aug092010_01E2309.pdf42 Dismissed 222
Aug092010_02E2309.pdf Sustained 223
Aug102010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 224
Aug112010_01E2309.pdf Sustained 225
Aug112010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed 226
Aug112010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed 227
42
Parents’ re-married quashed derivation eligibility under INA § 321(a)(3).
Latest Non-Precedent USCIS AAO N-600 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov
2010
Aug132010_01E2309.pdf43 Rejected as Untimely, 228
Remanded, to Treat as 229
Motion to Reopen 230
Aug132010_02E2309.pdf Summarily Dismissed 231
Aug182010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 232
Aug182010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed 233
Aug182010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed 234
Aug192010_01E2309.pdf44 Dismissed 235
Aug192010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed 236
Aug202010_01E2309.pdf Sustained 237
Aug242010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 238
Aug242010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed 239
Aug242010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed 240
Aug242010_04E2309.pdf45 Appeal was Dismissed, 241
This Motion Rejected as 242
Untimely 243
Aug242010_05E2309.pdf Dismissed 244
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 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov
2010
Aug242010_06E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely, 245
Remanded, to Treat as 246
Motion to Reopen 247
Aug252010_01E2309.pdf Remanded to Seek 248
Passport Revocation 249
Aug252010_02E2309.pdf Rejected as Untimely 250
Aug252010_03E2309.pdf Dismissed 251
Aug262010_01E2309.pdf Dismissed 252
Aug262010_02E2309.pdf Dismissed 253
Aug262010_03E2309.pdf Sustained 254
Aug312010_02E2309.pdf Sustained 255
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
Latest Non-Precedent USCIS AAO N-600 Decisions Posted Online @ www.uscis.gov
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