(a) After 120 days following examination. An applicant for naturalization may seek judicial review of a pending application for naturalization in those instances where the Service fails to make a determination under section 335 of the Act within 120 days after an examination is conducted under part 335 of this chapter. An applicant shall make a proper application for relief to the United States District Court having jurisdiction over the district in which the applicant resides. The court may either determine the issues brought before it on their merits, or remand the matter to the Service with appropriate instructions.
(b) After denial of an application. After an application for naturalization is denied following a hearing before a Service officer pursuant to section 336(a) of the Act, the applicant may seek judicial review of the decision pursuant to section 310 of the Act.
Notes of Decisions
Cody v. Caterisano (2011)
ca4
“§ 1447 (b) and 8 C.F.R. § 310.5 (a). Additionally, Petitioner argued, USCIS was obligated to accept the Navy’s Form N-^426 certification as conclusive evidence that he served on active-duty status.”
Castracani v. Chertoff (2005)
dcd
“See 8 C.F.R § 310.5(a). 6 . Immigration Law and Procedure notes that "[w]hen a district court has acquired jurisdiction of a case, either through the appellate process or because [BCIS] failed to act on a pending application within 120 days, jurisdic-tidn for decision-making and…”
Omar v. United States (2008)
tnmd · cites it 2×
“Omar asserts that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 310.5 (“Judicial review”). In its motion, the United States seeks dismissal on the grounds that that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.”
Adi v. Wolf (2022)
ilnd
“5 (b) (“After an application for naturalization is denied following a hearing before a Service officer pursuant to [section 1447(a)], the applicant may seek judicial review of the decision pursuant to [section 1421].”). And at its most basic, the Government’s argument in this…”
Omar v. Tritten (2022)
mnd
“§ 1447 (a); 8 C.F.R. § 310.5 ). III. CONCLUSION Based on the submissions and the entire file and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 1.”
Adegbesote v. Tritten (2023)
mnd
“§ 1447 (a); 8 C.F.R. § 310.5 ). ORDER Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1.”
Obidov v. Wolf (2020)
nysd
“§ 1421 (c); see also 8 C.F.R. § 310.5 (application for judicial review is proper in “the United States District Court having jurisdiction over the district in which the applicant resides”).”
Edobor v. Onyango (2013)
gand
“Notably absent from Defendant’s briefing is any discussion of the precise circumstances of this case — what happens when USCIS denies a naturalization application after the plaintiff has already petitioned the district court for a hearing pursuant to Section 1447(b)? Instead,…”
— 8 C.F.R. § 310.5(a) — 1 case
Castracani v. Chertoff (2005)
dcd
“See 8 C.F.R § 310.5(a). 6 . Immigration Law and Procedure notes that "[w]hen a district court has acquired jurisdiction of a case, either through the appellate process or because [BCIS] failed to act on a pending application within 120 days, jurisdic-tidn for decision-making and…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.