Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, no person shall be naturalized unless he has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence in accordance with all applicable provisions of this chapter. The burden of proof shall be upon such person to show that he entered the United States lawfully, and the time, place, and manner of such entry into the United States, but in presenting such proof he shall be entitled to the production of his immigrant visa, if any, or of other entry document, if any, and of any other documents and records, not considered by the Attorney General to be confidential, pertaining to such entry, in the custody of the Service. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 405(b),11 See References in Text note below. and except as provided in sections 1439 and 1440 of this title no person shall be naturalized against whom there is outstanding a final finding of deportability pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act; and no application for naturalization shall be considered by the Attorney General if there is pending against the applicant a removal proceeding pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act: Provided, That the findings of the Attorney General in terminating removal proceedings or in canceling the removal of an alien pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, shall not be deemed binding in any way upon the Attorney General with respect to the question of whether such person has established his eligibility for naturalization as required by this subchapter.
Notes of Decisions
Seanlim Yith v. Kirstjen Nielsen, 881 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2018).
· cites it 21× “Opinion by Judge Ikuta; Concurrence by Judge Bates SUMMARY** Immigration The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim of Seanlim and Seak Leang Yith’s complaint requesting adjudication of their naturalization applications, holding that the…”
Ajlani v. Chertoff, 545 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2008).
· cites it 6× “See 8 U.S.C. § 1429 . 2 We now answer that question in the negative and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of dismissal.”
Gonzalez v. Sec'y of Dep't of HomeLand Sec., 678 F.3d 254 (3rd Cir. 2012).
· cites it 4× “In 1950, intending to end this race, Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. § 1429 , providing that “no petition for naturalization shall be finally heard by a naturalization court if there is pending against the petitioner a deportation proceeding____” 8 U.”
Fernandez v. Keisler, 502 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 6× “national status on naturalization applicants is difficult to reconcile with 8 U.S.C.A. § 1429 , which establishes "the primacy of removal proceedings over a naturalization application.”
Kestelboym v. Chertoff, 538 F. Supp. 2d 813 (D.N.J. 2008).
· cites it 9× “Defendants claim that, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1429 (1990), because a removal proceeding is pending, this Court does not have jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Complaint.”
Koszelnik v. Sec'y of Dep't of Homeland Sec., 828 F.3d 175 (3rd Cir. 2016).
· cites it 4× “The District Court denied Kosz-elnik’s application for naturalization on the basis that he had failed to demonstrate that he was “lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence,” as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1429 . Koszelnik now argues that because he is currently a…”
Dilone v. Nielsen, 358 F. Supp. 3d 490 (D. Maryland 2019).
· cites it 7× “Their legal argument, in brief, is that 8 U.S.C. § 1429 prevents both the agency and the courts from considering a naturalization application while removal proceedings are pending.”
Saba-Bakare v. Chertoff, 507 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 5× “But as 8 U.S.C. § 1429 precludes consideration by the Attorney General (read, USCIS) of a naturalization application once removal proceedings have begun, Saba-Bakare’s naturalization application could not appropriately be considered.”
Nesari v. Taylor, 806 F. Supp. 2d 848 (E.D. Va. 2011).
· cites it 7× “2 (b) (providing that the applicant for naturalization “shall bear the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she meets all of the requirements for naturalization, including that the applicant was lawfully admitted as a permanent resident to the…”
Ampe v. Johnson, 157 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2016).
· cites it 5× “It concluded that Petitioner was ineligible for naturalization because she had not been “lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence in accordance with all applicable provisions” of the INA, as required under 8 U.S.C. § 1429 , because she had “willfully…”
Shewchun v. Holder, 658 F.3d 557 (6th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 6× “3d at 905 (explaining that 8 U.S.C. § 1429’s prohibition on the consideration of naturalization applications while removal proceedings are pending was intended to end the “race between the alien to gain citizenship and the Attorney General to deport him” (quoting Shomberg v.”
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.