7 FAM 1230
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND APPEAL OF LOSS-OF-NATIONALITY
FINDINGS
(CT:CON-872; 03-21-2019)
(Office of Origin: CA/OCS)
7 FAM 1231 INTRODUCTION
(CT:CON-865; 12-18-2018)
a. Persons held to have lost (or not lost) U.S.
nationality by performance of acts made expatriating by statute have the right
to request an administrative review of the finding as part of the due process
of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. INA
349(b) (8 U.S.C. 1481(b)) places the burden of proof upon the party claiming
that loss has occurred.
b. On October 20, 2008, the Department of State
published a Final Rule, Public Notice 6398 in Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 203,
pages 62196-62197 eliminating the Departments Board of Appellate Review in the
Office of the Legal Adviser (L/BAR). The Rule revised 22 CFR 7 and 22 CFR 50
and authorized on a discretionary basis an alternative less cumbersome review
of loss of nationality determinations by the Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA).
The Interim Final Rule published at 73 FR 41256 July 18, 2008 was adopted
without change.
c. The procedures for requesting an administrative
review or appeal of the Departments administrative holding of loss of
nationality are shown on the reverse side of Form DS-4083, Certificate of Loss
of Nationality of the United States.
d. The availability of an administrative review without
time limitation does not constitute a mandatory procedure for administrative
appeal. The passage of time does not preclude a review particularly since loss
of U.S. nationality is an area of the law which has undergone substantial
change and older cases are sometimes those most deserving of review.
7 FAM 1232 AUTHORIty TO CONDUCT
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF LOSS DECISIONS
(CT:CON-469; 07-31-2013)
a. Upon revision of the regulations, the Bureau of
Consular Affairs, Directorate of Overseas Citizens Services, Office of Legal
Affairs (CA/OCS/L) is solely responsible for the administrative review of
previous findings of loss (or nonloss) of U.S. citizenship.
b. 7 FAM 1234
provides guidance about procedures to be followed by CA/OCS/L in recording
actions taken in loss-of-nationality cases in the American Citizen Services
(ACS) System and the Passport Lookout and Support System (PLOTS).
c. Inquirers should be advised to direct a written
request for an administrative review to the following address and to include
information regarding their intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship at the
time of the commission of the expatriating act and the voluntariness of the
expatriating act:
Express Mail:
Director
Office of Legal Affairs (CA/OCS/L)
Overseas Citizens Services
Bureau of Consular Affairs
U.S. Department of State
600 19th Street N.W. 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20431
Email: Ask-OCS-L@state.gov
Regular Mail:
Director
U.S. Department of State
CA/OCS/L
SA-17, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20522-1710
|
7 FAM 1233 FINDINGS OF LOSS OF
NATIONALITY DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
(CT:CON-449; 03-25-2013)
a. If the statute under which the finding of loss of
nationality was made has been declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme
Court, no formal administrative review of the case by CA/OCS/L is necessary.
b. If a Consular Lookout and Support System (CLASS)
CLASS reason code Q (questionable claim to U.S. citizenship) or CLASS reason
code L (loss of nationality) occurs for one of the following reasons:
Expatriating Act
|
Section of Law
|
Notes
|
Deserting the armed forces of the United States at
time of war, if and when convicted thereof by court martial and dishonorably
discharged.
|
INA 349(a)(8)
8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(8)
Section 401(g) Nationality Act of 1940 (NA)
|
Declared unconstitutional:
Trop v. Dulles (1958)
See 7 FAM 1200 Appendix B
|
Departing from or remaining outside of the United
States in time of war or period declared by the President to be a period of
national emergency for the purpose of evading or avoiding training and
service in the armed forces of the United States.
|
INA 349(a)(10)
8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(10)
|
Declared unconstitutional: Kennedy v.
Mendoza-Martinez (1963)
See 7 FAM 1200 Appendix B
|
Naturalized citizen taking up residence in former
country of origin
|
INA 352
8 U.S.C. 1484
|
Declared unconstitutional:
Schneider v. Rusk (1964)
See 7 FAM 1200 Appendix B
|
Voting in a foreign election
|
INA 349(a)(5) as originally enacted
Section 401(e) NA
|
Declared unconstitutional:
Afroyim v. Rusk (1967)
See 7 FAM 1200 Appendix B
|
c. Domestic passport agencies/centers: The authorized
passport specialist should delete the lookout and issue the passport.
d. Posts abroad: Consular officers abroad are not
authorized to remove CLASS entries; consequently, they should contact CA/OCS/L
(Ask-OCS-L@state.gov) to have the lookout removed.
e. If a Certificate of Loss of Nationality (CLN) was
approved for the case, CA/OCS/L (Ask-OCS-L@state.gov) should be asked to
retrieve the manual record and vacate the CLN. The PLOTS record should be
updated accordingly.
f. If the Q lookout was entered in CLASS prior to
1990, when the administrative presumption that a U.S. citizen intends to retain
U.S. nationality when he or she commits certain acts was adopted (see 7 FAM 1222),
CA/OCS/ACS can review the case and remove the lookout as appropriate. This
authorization relates to:
(1) INA 349(a)(1) naturalization in a foreign state;
(2) INA 349(a)(2) taking an oath of allegiance to a
foreign state; and
(3) INA 349(a)(4) serving in a low-level position in
the government of a foreign state.
g. CA/OCS/L presumes that one who has served in the
military of a state not engaged in hostilities with the United States intends
to retain ones U.S. citizenship.
7 FAM 1234 RECORD KEEPING IN
ADMINSTRATIVE REVIEW OF LOSS-OF-NATIONALITY CASES
(CT:CON-735; 09-29-2017)
a. It is important that meticulous records be
maintained of actions taken by the Department (CA and posts abroad) in
loss-of-nationality cases.
b. When a request for an administrative review of a
previous finding of loss of nationality is received in CA/OCS/L, the previous
case record will be retrieved from PLOTS and the Passport Issuance Electronic
Records System (PIERS).
c. The CA/OCS/L attorney should complete the
administrative review and prepare an advisory opinion on the case within 120
days of receipt, or provide written notice to the post, requester or
requesters attorney that additional time will be required:
(1) The CA/OCS/L attorney should prepare an interim
response acknowledging receipt of the request for administrative review;
(2) The office director should concur with the
advisory opinion and the notification letter to the requester prepared by the
attorney adviser. If necessary and appropriate, the Office of the Legal
Adviser for Consular Affairs (L/CA) should be consulted;
(3) The CA/OCS/L attorney or office director will
provide the ACS Office Director with a copy of the administrative review and
advisory opinion, for appropriate feedback and follow-up within CA/OCS/ACS to
ensure uniformity of ACS loss of nationality decision making;
(4) If the finding of loss of nationality is reversed,
the attorney adviser should ensure that the lookout is removed from CLASS via
PLOTS; and
(5) The correspondence should also be added to the
PLOTS record to ensure that passport agencies and centers have access to the
information. Not all Department offices have access to the ACS system.
7 FAM 1235 FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN
CONDUCTING ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF PREVIOUS FINDINGS OF LOSS OF NATIONALITY
(CT:CON-407; 06-29-2012)
a. Some cases in which the Department had previously
held loss of nationality may be reversed administratively by the Department.
Advantages of this procedure are that it is less expensive to the person
appealing and more convenient. This is not a substitute for the persons right
to appeal the decision in a court of law but is an option available in some
cases.
b. This procedure may be followed when:
(1) The law under which the holding of loss of
nationality was made is later held unconstitutional; for example, a law
concerning voting in a foreign election;
(2) A major change in the interpretation of the law on
expatriation is made as a result of a U.S. Supreme Court decision; for example,
the decision in Afroyim v. Rusk or Vance v. Terrazas;
(3) A major change is made in the interpretation of
the law by the Department or is made by another agency and adopted by the
Department. Most of these changes arose under previous statutes and prior to
the decision in Afroyim v. Rusk; for example, cases involving naturalization of
a minor; and
(4) Substantial new evidence of involuntariness or
intent, not previously considered but contemporaneous to the time when the
potentially expatriating act was performed, is presented by the individual.
c. CA/OCS/L will review a finding of loss of
citizenship at any time at the request of the individual concerning whom the
CLN has been approved, under the doctrine that an administrative agency has the
ability to review its earlier decisions. In conducting an administrative
review of a previous finding of loss of citizenship, CA/OCS/L examines whether
the individual who expatriated herself or himself did so voluntarily with the
intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship and whether the appropriate
procedures were followed in the particular case under review.
7 FAM 1236 Reviewing the Record
(CT:CON-407; 06-29-2012)
a. The first action CA/OCS/L will take is to retrieve
the loss-of-nationality file, lookout and previous passport history of the
applicant.
b. CA/OCS/L will consider whether the preponderance of
the evidence shows that it is more likely than not that the individual intended
to lose U.S. nationality.
c. CA/OCS/L will consider whether the individual has
overcome the voluntariness presumption and demonstrated that it is more likely
than not that the act was involuntary.
d. The individuals signing of an Affidavit of
Expatriated Person or Statement of Voluntary Relinquishment does not preclude
the vacating of a previously approved CLN; however, in such an instance, it is
incumbent upon the individual to present evidence of factors such as parental
coercion, mental infirmity, misinformation provided by a consular officer,
etc., that would refute the contents of the affidavit. All such evidence must
relate to the time when the potentially expatriating act was performed and not
to a subsequent change of heart.
e. Particular care should be given to reviewing older
findings of loss of U.S. citizenship; i.e., those occurring prior to 1970 and,
to a lesser degree, to cases decided in the period between 1970-1990. Bear in
mind that during this period, the law of expatriation underwent radical changes
as a result of a number of U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The net effect of
these changes was to require that the Department find that the preponderance of
the evidence establishes that an individual intended to lose nationality before
approving a CLN. Please note that there was a significant lag during this
period between (1) U.S. Supreme Court decisions on expatriation and (2) their
full implementation by the Department, and some U.S. consular officers may not
have understood that they could not simply presume a persons intent to
relinquish U.S. citizenship. Also be aware that, particularly before 1980, a
person who had performed a potentially expatriating act usually was denied a
U.S. passport while contesting a finding of loss of U.S. citizenship, and was
not considered eligible to receive a visa to travel to the United States
because that he or she had not yet been determined to be an alien. In cases
when persons had an urgent need to travel to the United States (e.g., serious
illness of a close family member) many have credibly recounted that they
resolved this dilemma by relinquishing U.S. citizenship so that they could
receive visas and make the trip.
f. Contemporaneous evidence of intent: As noted in
this section, the relevant intent is the persons intent at the time of the
commission of the potentially expatriating act. Thus, evidence submitted
generally should relate back to the time of the potentially expatriating act,
i.e., the persons frame of mind at that time or circumstances which are
illuminating with respect to the persons intent toward U.S. citizenship at
that time. Persons providing affidavits, for example, generally should have
first-hand knowledge of events at the time when the statutory act was performed
rather than information based upon anothers recounting of them. Note, however,
that a persons behavior before or after the expatriating act can be relevant
to the determination of the intent at the time of the act.
g. Voluntariness and renunciation: Renunciation cases
generally will involve the issue of voluntariness rather than intent. This is
because a person renouncing U.S. nationality expressly attests to an intention
to lose U.S. nationality by signing the Statement of Understanding and Oath of
Renunciation (see 7
FAM 1280). However, if the intent was misinformed (based upon an error(s)
of law or fact related by the consular officer to the renunciant at that time),
it may be determined that the intent was not knowing and that therefore the
intent required by law was not present.
h. Mental illness or incompetence: Cases involving
persons with a history of mental illness or developmental mental incompetence
who have chosen to renounce U.S. citizenship, require careful review. It is
not required that there be a showing of mental incompetence but rather that
some impairment of judgment occurred such as to refute, by a preponderance of
the evidence, the presumption of voluntariness which would otherwise apply (see
7 FAM 1290).
i. Renunciation under the age of 18 or shortly after
attaining age 18: Similarly, careful attention should be given to persons who
renounced U.S. citizenship in the time period before, or shortly after, their
18th birthday. In many instances, and in many societies, it is not unusual for
such persons to be especially vulnerable to parental pressure despite
contemporary denials of any such pressure. While persons may be legally
emancipated, they may well be particularly subject to the undue influence of
another, e.g., a parent (see 7 FAM 1290).
In such instances, it may be useful to obtain affidavits from the renunciants
parents indicating the absence of parental pressure.
7 FAM 1237 Interviewing the person
seeking reconsideration
(CT:CON-407; 06-29-2012)
CA/OCS/L may ask a consular officer to interview or
convene a video teleconference with the individual residing abroad to obtain
information regarding the voluntariness of the latters actions in
relinquishing her or his citizenship and/or her or his intentions with respect
to the retention of U.S. citizenship at the time of the commission of the
expatriating act.
7 FAM 1238 reversing finding of loss
of nationality, VACATING CLN AND REMOVING CLASS LOOKOUT
(CT:CON-872; 03-21-2019)
a. If CA/OCS/L decides to reverse the finding of loss
of nationality and vacate the CLN, the individuals U.S. nationality is
restored as of the date of the commission of the expatriating act that had
served initially as the basis for the approval of the CLN.
b. CA/OCS/L will communicate the decision to the
individual and the post.
c. CA/OCS/L will affix a specific stamp to the CLN
reflecting that the CLN is vacated. The stamp notes the date of the decision,
how the post and subject were notified of the decision, and bears the signature
of the CA/OCS/L official making this determination.
d. CA/OCS/L will remove the name from CLASS, close the
PLOTS record, and update the ACS record. Copies of correspondence will be
incorporated in the ACS and PLOTS records.
e. CA/OCS/L will advise
CA/OCS/ACS to officially inform relevant federal agencies that the
finding of loss has been overturned (see 7 FAM 1240).
f. CA/OCS/ACS will
retain a copy of the email notification to the federal agencies in accordance
with the OCS Records Disposition Schedule.
7 FAM 1239 lack of support to reverse
Previous Finding of Loss
(CT:CON-407; 06-29-2012)
If CA/OCS/L determines that there is inadequate support in
the application and the record to reverse the CLN and that the finding of loss
should in all likelihood be sustained, CA/OCS/L, after consultation with L/CA
in appropriate cases, will notify the individual and/or his/her representative,
and the post as needed, advising that additional evidence to support vacating
the CLN should be provided and that failure to submit additional evidence
within a prescribed time period will result in the filing of the application
for overturning the loss of nationality.