8 U.S.C. § 1447

Hearings on denials of applications for naturalization

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 8 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Request for hearing before immigration officer

If, after an examination under section 1446 of this title, an application for naturalization is denied, the applicant may request a hearing before an immigration officer.

(b) Request for hearing before district court

If there is a failure to make a determination under section 1446 of this title before the end of the 120-day period after the date on which the examination is conducted under such section, the applicant may apply to the United States district court for the district in which the applicant resides for a hearing on the matter. Such court has jurisdiction over the matter and may either determine the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to the Service to determine the matter.

The Attorney General shall have the right to appear before any immigration officer in any naturalization proceedings for the purpose of cross-examining the applicant and the witnesses produced in support of the application concerning any matter touching or in any way affecting the applicant’s right to admission to citizenship, and shall have the right to call witnesses, including the applicant, produce evidence, and be heard in opposition to, or in favor of the granting of any application in naturalization proceedings.

(d) Subpena of witnesses

The immigration officer shall, if the applicant requests it at the time of filing the request for the hearing, issue a subpena for the witnesses named by such applicant to appear upon the day set for the hearing, but in case such witnesses cannot be produced upon the hearing other witnesses may be summoned upon notice to the Attorney General, in such manner and at such time as the Attorney General may by regulation prescribe. Such subpenas may be enforced in the same manner as subpenas under section 1446(b) of this title may be enforced.

(e) Change of name

It shall be lawful at the time and as a part of the administration by a court of the oath of allegiance under section 1448(a) of this title for the court, in its discretion, upon the bona fide prayer of the applicant included in an appropriate petition to the court, to make a decree changing the name of said person, and the certificate of naturalization shall be issued in accordance therewith.

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 2, § 336, 66 Stat. 257; Pub. L. 91–136, Dec. 5, 1969, 83 Stat. 283; Pub. L. 97–116, § 15(d), Dec. 29, 1981, 95 Stat. 1619; Pub. L. 100–525, § 9(cc), Oct. 24, 1988, 102 Stat. 2621; Pub. L. 101–649, title IV, § 407(c)(17), (d)(14), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 5041, 5044; Pub. L. 102–232, title III, § 305(g), (h), Dec. 12, 1991, 105 Stat. 1750.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1991—Subsecs. (d), (e). Pub. L. 102–232, § 305(g), (h), amended Pub. L. 101–649, § 407(d)(14)(D)(i), (E)(ii), respectively. See 1990 Amendment note below.

1990—Pub. L. 101–649, § 407(d)(14)(A), amended section catchline generally.

Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 101–649, § 407(d)(14)(B), amended subsecs. (a) and (b) generally, substituting provisions relating to requests for hearing upon denial of application and failure to make determination, for provisions relating to holding of hearing in open court and exceptions to same, respectively.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 101–649, § 407(c)(17), (d)(14)(C), substituted “immigration officer” for “court” and references to applicant, applicant’s, and application for references to petitioner, petitioner’s, and petition wherever appearing.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 101–649, § 407(d)(14)(D)(i), as amended by Pub. L. 102–232, § 305(g), substituted “immigration officer shall, if the applicant requests it at the time of filing the request for the hearing” for “clerk of court shall, if the petitioner requests it at the time for filing the petition for naturalization”.

Pub. L. 101–649, § 407(c)(17), (d)(14)(D)(ii), (iii), substituted “applicant” for “petitioner”, struck out “final” before “hearing” wherever appearing, and inserted at end “Such subpenas may be enforced in the same manner as subpenas under section 1446(b) of this title may be enforced.”

Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 101–649, § 407(d)(14)(E)(i), substituted “administration by a court of the oath of allegiance under section 1448(a) of this title” for “naturalization of any person,”.

Pub. L. 101–649, § 407(d)(14)(E)(ii), as amended by Pub. L. 102–232, § 305(h), substituted “included in an appropriate petition to the court” for “included in the petition for naturalization of such person”.

Pub. L. 101–649, § 407(c)(17), substituted “applicant” for “petitioner”.

1988—Pub. L. 100–525 amended section catchline.

1981—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 97–116, § 15(d)(1), struck out “and the witnesses” after “such petition the petitioner”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 97–116, § 15(d)(1), struck out “and the witnesses” after “examination of the petitioner” in two places.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 97–116, § 15(d)(2), (3), redesignated subsec. (d) as (c) and struck out former subsec. (c) which prescribed a waiting period of thirty days after the filing of a petition for naturalization for the holding of a final hearing and permitted waiver of such period by the Attorney General if he determined that a waiver was in the public interest.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 97–116, § 15(3), (4), redesignated subsec. (e) as (d) and struck out provision permitting the substitution of witnesses if after the petition is filed any of the verifying witnesses appear to be not competent, provided the petitioner acted in good faith in producing such witness. Former subsec. (d) redesignated (c).

Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 97–116, § 15(d)(4), (5), redesignated subsec. (f) as (e). Former subsec. (e) redesignated (d).

Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 97–116, § 15(d)(5), redesignated subsec. (f) as (e).

1969—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 91–136 struck out requirement that Attorney General, as a prerequisite to waiver of the waiting period, make an affirmative finding that such waiver will promote the security of the United States, and further struck out the provision prohibiting the acquisition of citizenship by final oath within 60 days preceding a general election and prior to the tenth day following such election.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1991 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 102–232 effective as if included in the enactment of the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101–649, see section 310(1) of Pub. L. 102–232, set out as a note under section 1101 of this title.

Effective Date of 1981 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–116 effective Dec. 29, 1981, see section 21(a) of Pub. L. 97–116, set out as a note under section 1101 of this title.

Abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service and Transfer of Functions

For abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service, transfer of functions, and treatment of related references, see note set out under section 1551 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 387 cases (109 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case: Etape v. Chertoff, 497 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Etape v. Chertoff, 497 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 2007). · cites it 20× “OPINION DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge: We consider here whether a naturalization applicant's timely filing of a petition in federal court pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447 (b) (2000) vests the court with exclusive jurisdiction.”

Hamdan v. Chertoff, 626 F. Supp. 2d 1119 (D.N.M. 2007). · cites it 62× “The Court concludes that 8 U.S.C. § 1447 (b) does not confer exclusive jurisdiction.”

Seanlim Yith v. Kirstjen Nielsen, 881 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2018). · cites it 13× “NIELSEN OPINION IKUTA, Circuit Judge: Seanlim and Seak Leang Yith appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their complaint requesting adjudication of their naturalization applications pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447 (b). Relying on 8 U.S.C. § 1429 , the district court concluded…”

Aronov v. Chertoff, 536 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2008). · cites it 28× “On August 28, 2006, more than eighteen months after being interviewed by the agency, Aronov filed an action in the district court under 8 U.S.C. § 1447 (b), requesting that the court grant his application for naturalization or, alternatively, remand his application with…”

Aronov v. Napolitano, 562 F.3d 84 (1st Cir. 2009). · cites it 9× “Aronov’s suit, filed on August 28, 2006, was brought under 8 U.S.C. § 1447 (b), which allows an applicant for citizenship to seek relief in federal district court if the USCIS does not act on the application within 120 days of his or her citizenship interview examination.”

Bustamante v. Napolitano, 582 F.3d 403 (2d Cir. 2009). · cites it 11× “8 U.S.C. § 1447 (b) provides that a naturalization applicant can bring a petition to the district court when United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has not decided the application for more than 120 days after *404 the initial examination of the applicant.”

Khelifa v. Chertoff, 433 F. Supp. 2d 836 (E.D. Mich. 2006). · cites it 9× “” 8 U.S.C. § 1447 (b). Plaintiff alleges that this 120-day period has lapsed without a decision on his application, and he requests that the Court conduct a hearing, review his application for naturalization, *838 and grant him a-judgment declaring that he is entitled to U.”

Ajlani v. Chertoff, 545 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2008). · cites it 6× “Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447 (b), Ajlani, a Syrian national, sued for declaratory and injunc-tive relief to compel his naturalization as a United States citizen and to prohibit his removal from this country.”

Dilone v. Nielsen, 358 F. Supp. 3d 490 (D. Maryland 2019). · cites it 11× “His suit urges this Court to exercise its authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1447 (b), either by adjudicating the application itself or by ordering DHS to approve it.”

Al-Maleki v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1200 (10th Cir. 2009). · cites it 9× “See 8 U.S.C. § 1447 (b). Al-Ma-leki filed an action in federal court pursuant to 8 U.”

Yith v. Nielsen, 343 F. Supp. 3d 938 (E.D. Cal. 2018). · cites it 13× “Defendants request remand of this matter to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447 (b) to consider Plaintiffs Seanlim Yith and Seak Leang Yith's naturalization applications.”

Alkenani v. Barrows, 356 F. Supp. 2d 652 (N.D. Tex. 2005). · cites it 9× “4 As relief, petitioner seeks a hearing on his application for naturalization pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447 (b) or, in the alternative, a writ of mandamus requiring respondents to adjudicate his application by a date certain.”

Show all 387 citing cases →

— 8 U.S.C. § 1447(a) — 1 case

Kia v. INS (4th Cir. 1999).

— 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) — 4 cases

MUSAAD v. Mueller, 627 F. Supp. 2d 804 (S.D. Ohio 2007).

Yith v. Wolf (E.D. Cal. 2019).

Obianyo v. United States Citizenship & Immigr. Servs. (D.N.J. 2024).

Saleh v. Pastore (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

— 8 U.S.C. § 1447(c) — 1 case

Goodman v. CIBC Oppenheimer & Co., 131 F. Supp. 2d 1180 (C.D. Cal. 2001).

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.