The Attorney General is authorized to cancel any certificate of citizenship, certificate of naturalization, copy of a declaration of intention, or other certificate, document or record heretofore issued or made by the Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner or hereafter made by the Attorney General if it shall appear to the Attorney General’s satisfaction that such document or record was illegally or fraudulently obtained from, or was created through illegality or by fraud practiced upon, him or the Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner; but the person for or to whom such document or record has been issued or made shall be given at such person’s last-known place of address written notice of the intention to cancel such document or record with the reasons therefor and shall be given at least sixty days in which to show cause why such document or record should not be canceled. The cancellation under this section of any document purporting to show the citizenship status of the person to whom it was issued shall affect only the document and not the citizenship status of the person in whose name the document was issued.
Notes of Decisions
L. Xia v. Rex Tillerson (2017)
cadc · cites it 4×
“8 U.S.C. § 1453 . The Department of Homeland Security has promulgated regulations governing that process.”
Gorbach v. Reno (2000)
ca9 · cites it 6×
“8 U.S.C. § 1453 . . Id. . 8 C.F.R. § 340.”
Gorbach v. Reno (1999)
ca9 · cites it 4×
“See 8 U.S.C. § 1453 (1970). 13 Thus, as she sees it, there is no way that the positive power to reopen can be inferred from the “savings clause,” which is merely negative and does not itself authorize the Attorney General to do anything.”
Yu-Ling Teng v. District Director (2016)
ca9
“§ 1449 , and also has the power to cancel those certificates, 8 U.S.C. § 1453 . 6 As part of these statutory revisions, Congress has also shifted the power to “correct, reopen, alter, modify, or vacate an order naturalizing the person” from the federal courts to the Attorney…”
Friend v. Reno (1999)
ca9 · cites it 4×
“The court reasoned that the status of the Philippines under § 1993 was sufficiently ambiguous that the Immigration Examiner’s error in issuing the certificate of citizenship did not rise to a level of illegality sufficient to permit the certificate’s cancellation under 8 U.S.C.…”
ZHANG (2019)
bia
“Section 342 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1453 (2012); 8 C.F.R. §§ 342.1 , 342.”
Lihong Xia v. Kerry (2014)
dcd
“Schofield, USCIS determined that plaintiffs’ naturalization certificates were obtained illegally and cancelled them pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1453 . See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 24-25; Ex.”
FALODUN (2017)
bia
“In support of this argument, he relies on the language of section 342 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1453 (2012), and Gorbach v. Reno, 219 F.”
VILLANUEVA (1984)
bia
“' Therefore, unless void on its face, an administrative certifi- cate of citizenship is conclusive proof of United States citizenship absent its direct cancellation pursuant to section 342 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1453 (1982). The foregoing principles also apply with regard to the…”
Hadwan v. US Dep't of State (2025)
ca2
“See 8 U.S.C. § 1453 (authorizing the cancellation of a naturalization certificate “if it shall appear to the Attorney General’s satisfaction that such document … was illegally or fraudulently obtained” and providing the certificate holder “at least sixty days in which to show…”
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.