(a) General. The provisions in part 310 of this chapter shall provide the sole and exclusive procedures for requesting judicial review of final determinations on applications for naturalization made pursuant to section 336(a) of the Act and the provisions of this chapter by USCIS on or after October 1, 1991.
(b) Filing a petition. Under these procedures, an applicant must file a petition for review in the United States District Court having jurisdiction over his or her place of residence, in accordance with Chapter 7 of Title 5, United States Code, within a period of not more than 120 days after the USCIS final determination. The petition for review must be brought against USCIS, and service of the petition for review must be made upon DHS and upon the USCIS office where the hearing was held pursuant to 8 CFR 336.2.
(c) Standard of review. The review will be de novo, and the court will make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court may also conduct, at the request of the petitioner, a hearing de novo on the application for naturalization.
(d) Exhaustion of remedies. A USCIS determination denying an application for naturalization under section 335(a) of the Act shall not be subject to judicial review until the applicant has exhausted those administrative remedies available to the applicant under section 336 of the Act. Every petition for judicial review shall state whether the validity of the final determination to deny an application for naturalization has been upheld in any prior administrative proceeding and, if so, the nature and date of such proceeding and the forum in which such proceeding took place.
[56 FR 50499, Oct. 7, 1991, as amended at 76 FR 53802, Aug. 29, 2011]
Notes of Decisions
Mazen Shweika v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 723 F.3d 710 (6th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 8× “We recognize that a regulation provides that “[a] USCIS determination denying an application for naturalization under [§ 1446] shall not be subject to judicial review until the applicant has exhausted those administrative remedies available to the applicant under [§ 1447].”
Hafils Akpovi v. David Douglas, 43 F.4th 832 (8th Cir. 2022).
· cites it 2× “judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), arguing that the district court committed a “manifest error of law and fact” when it dismissed Akpovi’s petition without prejudice and stated that he -3- could reassert his claim “should removal proceedings be…”
Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383 (5th Cir. 2022).
“” 8 C.F.R. § 336.9 (d). The lack of similar language here confirms that the agency did not intend the same result.”
De Dandrade v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 367 F. Supp. 3d 174 (S.D. Ill. 2019).
“§ 1421 (c) ; see 8 C.F.R. § 336.9 (d). The district court is required to engage in a "de novo" review and is instructed to "make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law.”
Hamdan v. Chertoff, 626 F. Supp. 2d 1119 (D.N.M. 2007).
· cites it 3× “The Defendants suggested that the Court order the USCIS to take action within the 180 days provided by 8 C.F.R. § 336.9 (d). See id. at 8:18-19 (Zavitz).”
Alkenani v. Barrows, 356 F. Supp. 2d 652 (N.D. Tex. 2005).
“Nee' 8 C.F.R. § 336.9 (b) (“[A]n applicant shall file a petition for review in the United States district court having jurisdiction over his or her place of residence .”
Silebi De Donado v. Swacina, 486 F. Supp. 2d 1360 (S.D. Fla. 2007).
“8 C.F.R. § 336.9 (d). In response, Plaintiff argues that the Court does have the means to investigate her application.”
Ogunfuye v. Acosta, 210 F. App'x 364 (5th Cir. 2006).
“8 C.F.R. § 336.9 (d) (2006). Ogunfuye could have halted deportation by establishing “prima facie” eligibility of naturalization or a matter involving exceptionally appealing or humanitarian factors.”
Omar v. Holder, 756 F. Supp. 2d 887 (S.D. Ohio 2010).
· cites it 2× “§§ 1447 (a) and 1421(c) and implementing regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 336.9 . However, these provisions by their terms apply to judicial review of a determinations by CIS to deny a naturalization application.”
Tan v. United States Dep't of Just., Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 931 F. Supp. 725 (D. Haw. 1996).
“4(i) governs the service of a summons and a complaint, but does not address service of a petition for review of denial of a naturalization application; he claims to have followed the service requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 336.9 (b). In the instant case, the Respondent has appeared…”
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.