The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has recently (in 2010) made a big deal out of nothing. See the almost useless Decision at: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/11/09/09-71987.pdf
The frivolous case involves claim to derivative citizenship under former INA section 322 of an adopted guy whose "American" mom had filed an old N-643 on his behalf and then apparently no-showed three times. He later filed an N-400 in 1986, and that did not get approved, either. (Back in those days, INS wasn't so precise in processing procedures, things were not computerized, things were done by hand and petitions for naturalization were still being filed in District Court to be approved by the judge.) The agency used to just make a hand-written note "not filed" and dated it when they were not moving forward with naturalization. An actual denial would only be required if they were trying to deport someone who had filed for naturalization. The 9th Circuit Justices have only embarrassed themselves in this ill-conceived decision making a mountain out of a mole hill. The guy aged out of citizenship through an adoptive USC parent and never followed through with his own N-400. The 9th Circuit VERY INCORRECTLY made a big deal out of whether or not proof of the now deceased USC mom was in fact a USC, might be found in his other A-file. That point is moot and irrelevant as of the day this guy aged out 20 something years ago. This petitioner is a carreer criminal who had more than one A-file (likely happened in the course of his arrests and him not knowing his A# and giving his birth name rather than his adoptive name or the other way around and fessing up that he was born in Honduras and never mentioning his LPR status or adoption.)
His shady lawyer made a big deal out of "his client's rights being violated by the big bad USCIS ogres"--boo hoo, cry me a river. The 9th Circuit was complicit in this farce and also failed to take into account that the issue that they are making such a big deal about was already settled years before.
The guy was convicted on narcotics charges and escape from jail which makes him an "aggravated felon" and removable.
The issue was already dealt with by USCIS in 2007, see: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/us...nnel=34139c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD
An excerpt:
USCIS uses a three-track system to process FOIA requests.
Track One: Routine requests;
Track Two: Complex inquiries that normally necessitate additional search and review time; and
Track Three: Requests by individuals scheduled for a hearing before an immigration judge.
Track Three became effective March 30, 2007. It consists of FOIA requests of individuals who are scheduled to appear before an immigration judge. The new track allows for accelerated access to A-files requested through the FOIA process, provided an individual or the individual’s representative includes at least one of the following documents with the FOIA request:
Notice to Appear (Form I-862) documenting a future scheduled date of the subject’s hearing before an immigration judge;
Order to Show Cause (Form I-122) documenting a future scheduled date of the subject’s hearing before an immigration judge;
Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge (Form I-863); or
A written request of continuation of a scheduled hearing before the immigration judge.
Requesters wishing to move a pending FOIA request to this new Track Three for processing must resubmit the request and comply with the above requirements.
Notice of this new track was published in the Federal Register February 28, 2007. A link to the Federal Register Notice is located under "Related Links" on this page.
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/E7-3357.htm
The frivolous case involves claim to derivative citizenship under former INA section 322 of an adopted guy whose "American" mom had filed an old N-643 on his behalf and then apparently no-showed three times. He later filed an N-400 in 1986, and that did not get approved, either. (Back in those days, INS wasn't so precise in processing procedures, things were not computerized, things were done by hand and petitions for naturalization were still being filed in District Court to be approved by the judge.) The agency used to just make a hand-written note "not filed" and dated it when they were not moving forward with naturalization. An actual denial would only be required if they were trying to deport someone who had filed for naturalization. The 9th Circuit Justices have only embarrassed themselves in this ill-conceived decision making a mountain out of a mole hill. The guy aged out of citizenship through an adoptive USC parent and never followed through with his own N-400. The 9th Circuit VERY INCORRECTLY made a big deal out of whether or not proof of the now deceased USC mom was in fact a USC, might be found in his other A-file. That point is moot and irrelevant as of the day this guy aged out 20 something years ago. This petitioner is a carreer criminal who had more than one A-file (likely happened in the course of his arrests and him not knowing his A# and giving his birth name rather than his adoptive name or the other way around and fessing up that he was born in Honduras and never mentioning his LPR status or adoption.)
His shady lawyer made a big deal out of "his client's rights being violated by the big bad USCIS ogres"--boo hoo, cry me a river. The 9th Circuit was complicit in this farce and also failed to take into account that the issue that they are making such a big deal about was already settled years before.
The guy was convicted on narcotics charges and escape from jail which makes him an "aggravated felon" and removable.
The issue was already dealt with by USCIS in 2007, see: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/us...nnel=34139c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD
An excerpt:
USCIS uses a three-track system to process FOIA requests.
Track One: Routine requests;
Track Two: Complex inquiries that normally necessitate additional search and review time; and
Track Three: Requests by individuals scheduled for a hearing before an immigration judge.
Track Three became effective March 30, 2007. It consists of FOIA requests of individuals who are scheduled to appear before an immigration judge. The new track allows for accelerated access to A-files requested through the FOIA process, provided an individual or the individual’s representative includes at least one of the following documents with the FOIA request:
Notice to Appear (Form I-862) documenting a future scheduled date of the subject’s hearing before an immigration judge;
Order to Show Cause (Form I-122) documenting a future scheduled date of the subject’s hearing before an immigration judge;
Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge (Form I-863); or
A written request of continuation of a scheduled hearing before the immigration judge.
Requesters wishing to move a pending FOIA request to this new Track Three for processing must resubmit the request and comply with the above requirements.
Notice of this new track was published in the Federal Register February 28, 2007. A link to the Federal Register Notice is located under "Related Links" on this page.
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/E7-3357.htm
Last edited by a moderator: