One of the requirements of naturlaization is to have 5 years of continuous residence as a LPR. If the applicant does not meet that requirement at interview, USCIS is within their legal power to deny such a case.
Bobsmyth,
You have a message from the horse, it is dead, stop beating it.
The conclusion you reach is unsupported and has not stood up to judicial review. While more than one of the following could easily apply the most appropriate basis to overturn such a ridiculous result is shown in bold.
The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) provides, in pertinent part:
706. Scope of review
To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the
reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret
constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or
applicability of the terms of an agency action. The reviewing court
shall--
(1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably
delayed; and
(2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and
conclusions found to be--
(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law;
(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or
immunity;
(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or
limitations, or short of statutory right;
(D) without observance of procedure required by law;
(E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to
sections 556 and 557 of this title or otherwise reviewed on the
record of an agency hearing provided by statute; or
(F) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts
are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court.
In making the foregoing determinations, the court shall review the whole
record or those parts of it cited by a party, and due account shall be
taken of the rule of prejudicial error.
5 USC