Another N-336 Success: Naturalization Approved After N-336 Hearing! (September 2022)

In September 2022, USCIS Field Office in San Jose, CA reversed their previous denial of our client's naturalization application, and approved our client's N-400 application. Our client is now a U.S. Citizen.

Previously, USCIS denied our client’s N-400 application claiming that our client is barred from naturalization because his 2005 conviction under Cal. Pen. Code § 32, Accessory After the Fact, constitutes an aggravated felony as obstruction of justice under INA § 101(a)(43)(S). Based on this misstatement, USCIS wrongfully concluded that our client was unable to demonstrate good moral character, and denied his application for naturalization.

Attorney Nguyen D. Luu and our legal team took on representation to assist our client filing the  N-336, Request for a Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings (Under Section 336 of the INA.) An N-336 hearing is very similar to a regular naturalization hearing. The Applicant or his or her attorney is allowed to make their case regarding the issues that had led to the initial denial of form N-400.

Our firm prepared a substantive legal memo, supporting documents, and appeared at the hearing interview with our client. The evidence presented sufficiently supported a finding  that USCIS’s mischaracterization of Cal. Pen. Code § 32 is the sole basis of the Denial. This was a material error of law. The Denial completely ignored binding precedent here in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It is well settled that a conviction for accessory after the fact under Cal. Pen. Code § 32 is never an aggravated felony under INA § 101(a)(43)(S). Valenzuela Gallardo v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2020).

By making such an obvious contradiction of black letter law in the Denial, USCIS violated its duty under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to engage in “reasoned decision making.” Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743, 750 (2015); 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq. Under the APA, USCIS must refrain from making decisions that are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (emphasis added).

The reviewing USCIS Officer, who was required to be a higher rank officer by law, conceded during the interview that USCIS was wrong in denying our client's N-400 application and promptly  approved our client's N-400 application.

We are very pleased that we were able to successfully achieve a favorable result for our clients.

Related story:

• Successfully Reversed Previous Denial of N-400 Naturalization Application (February 2022)
• Successfully Obtained Post Conviction Relief and U.S. Citizenship for Client with Aggravated Felony Convictions (August 2019)
• Successfully Reversed Previous Denial of N-400 Naturalization Application through Post Conviction Relief(August 2022)