8 C.F.R. § 336.2

USCIS hearing

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The applicant, or his or her authorized representative, may request a hearing on the denial of the applicant's application for naturalization by filing a request with USCIS within thirty days after the applicant receives the notice of denial.

(b) Upon receipt of a timely request for a hearing, USCIS will schedule a review hearing, within a reasonable period of time not to exceed 180 days from the date upon which the appeal is filed. The review will be with an officer other than the officer who conducted the original examination or who rendered determination upon which the hearing is based, and who is classified at a grade level equal to or higher than the grade of the examining officer. The reviewing officer will have the authority and discretion to review the application for naturalization, to examine the applicant, and either to affirm the findings and determination of the original examining officer or to re-determine the original decision in whole or in part. The reviewing officer will also have the discretion to review any administrative record which was created as part of the examination procedures as well USCIS files and reports. He or she may receive new evidence or take such additional testimony as may be deemed relevant to the applicant's eligibility for naturalization or which the applicant seeks to provide. Based upon the complexity of the issues to be reviewed or determined, and upon the necessity of conducting further examinations with respect to essential naturalization requirements, such as literacy or civics knowledge, the reviewing immigration officer may, in his or her discretion, conduct a full de novo hearing or may utilize a less formal review procedure, as he or she deems reasonable and in the interest of justice.

(c) Improperly filed request for hearing—(1) Request for hearing filed by a person or entity not entitled to file—(i) Rejection without refund of filing fee. A request for hearing filed by a person or entity who is not entitled to file such a request must be rejected as improperly filed. In such a case, any filing fee will not be refunded.

(ii) Request for hearing by attorney or representative without proper Form G-28. If a request for hearing is filed by an attorney or representative who has not properly filed a notice of entry of appearance as attorney or representative entitling that person to file the request for hearing, the appeal will be considered as improperly filed. In such a case, any filing fee will not be refunded regardless of the action taken. The reviewing official will ask the attorney or representative to submit a proper notice of entry within 15 days of the request. If such notice is not submitted within the time allowed, the official may, on his or her own motion, under 8 CFR 103.5(a)(5)(i), make a new decision favorable to the affected party without notifying the attorney or representative. The request for hearing may be considered properly filed as of its original filing date if the attorney or representative submits a properly executed notice entitling that person to file the request for hearing.

(2) Untimely request for hearing—(i) Rejection without refund of filing fee. A request for hearing which is not filed within the time period allowed must be rejected as improperly filed. In such a case, any filing fee will not be refunded.

(ii) Untimely request for hearing treated as motion. If an untimely request for hearing meets the requirements of a motion to reopen as described in 8 CFR 103.5(a)(2) or a motion to reconsider as described in 8 CFR 103.5(a)(3), the request for hearing must be treated as a motion and a decision must be made on the merits of the case.

[76 FR 53802, Aug. 29, 2011]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 46 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: Iqbal v. Sec'y U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 190 F. Supp. 3d 322 (W.D.N.Y. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Iqbal v. Sec'y U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 190 F. Supp. 3d 322 (W.D.N.Y. 2016). · cites it 4× “6 at 17); Plaintiff responds that, because Defendants failed to schedule a hearing within 180 days of his § 1447(a) administrative appeal being filed, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 336.2 , this-matter is “an extreme case of unreasonable delay by USCIS” and that he “did wait,…”

Aishat v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 288 F. Supp. 3d 261 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “See 8 C.F.R. § 336.2 (b). Despite scheduling several interviews, the Dallas Field Office has yet to issue a decision on his appeal, and Aishat claims that this delay has violated the INA.”

Alkenani v. Barrows, 356 F. Supp. 2d 652 (N.D. Tex. 2005). · cites it 2× “§ 1447 (a); 8 C.F.R. § 336.2 . The hearing must be conducted promptly, no later than 180 days from the daté the appeal is filed.”

De Dandrade v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 367 F. Supp. 3d 174 (S.D. Ill. 2019). “4 The two remaining individual plaintiffs with outstanding N-648 waiver denials, Moya and Ruiz, had their naturalization applications denied in June and September 2017, respectively.”

United States v. Hovsepian, 307 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2002). · cites it 4× “8 C.F.R. § 336.2 (a); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1447 (a).”

Mazen Shweika v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 723 F.3d 710 (6th Cir. 2013). “Although regulations require that US-CIS schedule an administrative hearing within 180 days of a timely request, 8 C.F.R. § 336.2 (b), ten months passed without a hearing.”

United States v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2004). “It argues that, instead, "the district court steps into the role of the INS officer and proceeds to determine whether the application should be granted or denied based on the content of the application and the evidence presented to the INS during its ex-animation of the…”

Kuzova v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 686 F. App'x 506 (9th Cir. 2017). “§ 1447 (a); 8 C.F.R. § 336.2 (b). 2. The district court properly dismissed Counts 2 and 7—Kuzov’s request for a writ of mandamus and request for a declaration of rights—as moot.”

Lord v. Chertoff, 526 F. Supp. 2d 435 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). · cites it 2× “Although, under 8 C.F.R. § 336.2 (b), the CIS is required to provide a second naturalization interview or a re-hearing within 180 days of a request by a naturalization applicant, there is no prescribed time frame in which the CIS must render a decision after such hearing.”

Campos v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 32 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (S.D. Fla. 1998). “That appeal process currently takes one year to eighteen months.”

Lucaj v. Dedvukaj, 749 F. Supp. 2d 601 (E.D. Mich. 2010). “§ 1447 (a) and 8 C.F.R. § 336.2 . [See Def.’s Supp. Br. at 4.”

Aparicio v. Blakeway, 302 F.3d 437 (5th Cir. 2002). “8 C.F.R. § 336.2 (b). If the INS again denies the application, or if 120 days elapse from the date of the first determination without the reconsideration taking place, the applicant may seek review of the denial in the United States District Court.”

Show all 46 citing cases →

— 8 C.F.R. § 336.2(a) — 1 case

Phillips v. Boente, 674 F. App'x 106 (2d Cir. 2017).

— 8 C.F.R. § 336.2(b) — 5 cases

United States v. Hovsepian, 307 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2002). “8 C.F.R. § 336.2 (a); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1447 (a).”

Abghari v. Gonzales, 596 F. Supp. 2d 1336 (C.D. Cal. 2009).

Lord v. Chertoff, 526 F. Supp. 2d 435 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). “Although, under 8 C.F.R. § 336.2 (b), the CIS is required to provide a second naturalization interview or a re-hearing within 180 days of a request by a naturalization applicant, there is no prescribed time frame in which the CIS must render a decision after such hearing.”

United States v. Viken Hovsepian Viken Yacoubian, Viken Hovsepian v. United States of Am. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., Viken Hovsepian Viken Yacoubian v. United States of Am. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 307 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2002).

Miriyeva v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs. (S.D. Cal. 2022).

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.