Let us all read, this is the exact extract from the case that addresses the 5-year rule:
"The final reason why this Court cannot construe the May 4, 2009 decisions as revoking that Agarwals' LPR status is that such a revocation would time barred. The statute setting out the power to revoke lawful permanent resident status specifies that the deadline for such an
action is five years from the date of the adjustment ofstatus:
If, at any time within five years after the status of a person has been otherwise [*34] adjusted. . . to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, it shall appear to the satisfaction
of the Attorney General that the person was not in fact eligible for such adjustment of status, the Attorney General shall rescind the action taken granting an adjustment of status to such person. 8 U.S.C. § 1256; see also Garcia v. Att'y General, 553 F.3d 724 (3rd Cir. 2009) (holding that any rescission of LPR status is subject to the statute of limitations); see
also Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding that rescission of LPR status in every context, other than in removal proceedings predicated on an attack on the original adjustment to LPR status, is subject to the
statute of limitations).
Since the Agarwals were initially granted LPR status in 1997, and the purported revocation took place in 2009as an incident to the adjudication of their naturalization petitions, it is well beyond the five year limit and thus not
permitted by law. For these reasons, then, this Court holds that the CIS has not proved that the Agarwals' LPR status was properly revoked, and since it has not been revoked, the Agarwals are not rendered ineligible for
naturalization on [*35] such grounds".
The way I read this that the Attorney General (and USCIS) shall notify the applicant AND take an action to revoke LPR not later than 5 years from the LPR date which I think the date of approval...for GC.
The logic of this case is that this 5 year rule may have saved the Agarwals LPR status and helped them to get citizenship. Now question is that does USCIS as a way of practice do this or this was more defensive move from USCIS when the Agarwals have started the initial case against USCIS for delaying their naturalization case. I read few N-400 denial cases in this forum (i think one was for using improper visa form or working under improper visa way before LPR applied for LPR status but we did not hear any cases where USCIS goes after LPR status)...
I think the question (if there is a challange in pre-GC history..similar to visa case stay...which was a basis for N-400 denial), should we try to push FP appointment date (even perhaps N-400 application, people like me who has not applied yet) beyond 5- year LPR date to be on a safe side....OR we should take advantage of 5 year minus 90 days rule but manage the risk via interview timing process.