(a) Clerical amendments—(1) By applicant. An applicant may request that the application for naturalization be amended either prior to or subsequent to the administration of the oath of allegiance.
(2) By Service. The Service may amend, at any time, an application for naturalization when in receipt of information that clearly indicates that a clerical error has occurred.
(3) Amendment procedure. Any amendment will be limited to the correction of clerical errors arising from oversight or omission. If the amendment is approved, the amended application shall be filed with the original application for naturalization.
(b) Substantive amendments. Any substantive amendments which affect the jurisdiction or the decision on the merits of the application will not be authorized. When the Service is in receipt of any information that would indicate that an application for naturalization should not have been granted on the merits, the Service may institute proceedings to reopen the application before admission to citizenship, or to revoke the naturalization of a person who has been admitted to citizenship, in accordance with section 340 of the Act and § 335.5 of this chapter.
[56 FR 50496, Oct. 7, 1991]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2022 · leading case:
Baidas v. Jenifer, 123 F. App'x 663 (6th Cir. 2005).
Baidas v. Jenifer, 123 F. App'x 663 (6th Cir. 2005).
“8 C.F.R. § 334.5 (b) (1992). Under these regulations, the INS appears not to have discretion simply to revoke an application once granted, or to refuse to schedule a successful applicant for the taking of the oath, even though information comes to light indicating the…”
Varghai v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., Dist. Dir., 932 F. Supp. 1245 (D. Or. 1996).
“” Amendment of Application for Naturalization; Reopening Proceedings, 8 C.F.R. § 334.5 (a)(3), (b) (1996). With regard to amendments of petitions for nationalization, the federal regulations state “[n]o objection shall be made to the amendment of a petition for naturalization…”
Rahman v. Dir. Ur Mendoza Jaddou (2d Cir. 2022).
· cites it 2× “Specifically, he argues mandamus is necessary to enforce Defendants’ legal obligations owed to him under 8 C.F.R. §§ 334.5 and 338.5. Although the Mandamus Act may provide a basis for the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction, 4 we conclude that Rahman has not shown he is…”
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.