On October 19, 2011, a
USCIS Update was issued announcing processing improvements for certain
naturalization and citizenship forms. USCIS had centralized intake of
Forms N-336, N-600 and N-600K to the Phoenix Lockbox facility. The Dallas
Lockbox facility now handles the Form N-300. This change streamlined the way forms
are processed, accelerated the collection and deposit
of fees and improved the consistency of our intake process.
Please remember that impacted forms received at
local and district offices after December 2, 2011, are no longer forwarded to
the appropriate USCIS Lockbox facility. Beginning December 5,
impacted forms that were received locally were returned to the individual with
instructions on how to re-file at a designated USCIS Lockbox facility.
Showing posts with label N-336. Show all posts
Showing posts with label N-336. Show all posts
Friday, February 10, 2012
Monday, October 24, 2011
USCIS Improves Processing for Naturalization and Citizenship Forms
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is enhancing the filing process for select forms dealing with naturalization and citizenship (N-Forms). Beginning Oct. 30, 2011, the new process will allow individuals to file N-Forms at a secure Lockbox facility instead of our local offices. This change streamlines the way forms are processed, accelerates the collection and deposit of fees and improves the consistency of our intake process.
Individuals should begin submitting affected forms directly to the appropriate Lockbox beginning Oct. 30, 2011. Forms received by local USCIS offices during a transition period between Oct. 30 and Dec. 2, 2011, will be forwarded to the USCIS Lockbox facility for processing. Forms received at local USCIS offices after Dec. 2, 2011, will no longer be forwarded but will be returned to the individual with instructions on how to re-file at a designated USCIS Lockbox facility. USCIS will centralize intake of Forms N-336, N-600 and N-600K at the Phoenix Lockbox facility. The Dallas Lockbox facility will handle the Form N-300. Individuals filing Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, already file at a Lockbox facility.
The following table lists N-Forms affected by this filing change:
| Affected N-Forms | Date that Lockbox starts accepting N-Forms | Last receipt date that local offices will forward N-Forms to Lockbox |
| N-300, Application to File Declaration of Intention N-336, Request for a Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings N-600, Application for Certificate of Citizenship N-600K, Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate Under Section 322 | Sunday, October 30, 2011 | Friday, December 2, 2011 |
USCIS has updated the information on our N-Form Web pages regarding filing forms at a Lockbox to clearly identify this change in procedure. Please carefully read the form instructions before filing your form to ensure that you are filing the correct form type at the correct location. Any individual submitting the wrong form type for the benefit sought will not receive a fee refund. Instead, individuals will have to re-apply using the correct form and pay a new fee.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
ANALIEFO ANTHONY OKOLOJI, : 3:07cv24(WWE)
Petitioner, ::
v. :
:
MICHAEL CHERTOFF, et al., :
Respondents. :
RULING ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
The petitioner, Analiefo Anthony Okoloji, has brought a petition for mandamus seeking to compel adjudication of his application for citizenship. Respondents assert that the action is moot since petitioner’s application has now been adjudicated. For the following reasons, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
BACKGROUND
On May 23, 2005, petitioner filed a Form N-400 application for citizenship. On October 31, 2005, petitioner was interviewed by a District Adjudication Officer concerning his eligibility for naturalization. On December 9, 2005, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”) denied the petitioner’s N-400 application on the basis of petitioner’s unpaid taxes.
On January 5, 2006, petitioner filed a Request for a N-336 Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings. On May 19, 2006, petitioner attended a hearing on his N-336 application, at which time he was requested to provide further information. Petitioner submitted that requested information.
On January 5, 2007, petitioner filed this complaint for mandamus relief,requesting this Court to compel the respondents to adjudicate the petitioner’s Form N-400 and Form N-366 applications.
In February 2007, respondents sent petitioner a decision on his Form N-366 request for a hearing, adhering to its previous decision to deny his N-400 application for naturalization.
The decision stated:
Information submitted by you indicated that you set up a payment plan in 2003 to address the issue of these overdue taxes. While the information you submitted overcomes the allegation that back taxes were not fully addressed until 2005, it still does not indicate that the debts from 2000, 2001, and 2002 tax years were addressed timely. A review of the tax transcripts that you submitted reveals that on July 19, 2003, an “Intent to Levy Collection Due Process Notice” was issued to you. This notice was issued as a result of your failure to timely pay taxes that were owed from previous tax years. Furthermore, the tax transcripts submitted throughout the statutory period reflect that you were subject to several “failure to pay” tax penalties. Failure to pay owed taxes is an unlawful act that adversely reflects upon your moral character.
In light of the lack of evidence concerning any extenuating circumstances that would have caused petitioner’s failure to pay taxes timely, the USCIS found that plaintiff had not sustained his burden of proof to establish good moral character during the statutorily prescribed period.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner seeks judicial determination of his naturalization application and a declaration that he is entitled to be naturalized. He argues that this Court retains exclusive jurisdiction over the matter and should disregard respondents’ decision. The Court assumes for purposes of this ruling that petitioner’s reliance on §1447(b) is proper.
Petitioner has brought this mandamus action pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b),
which provides, in relevant part1:
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 instruction, to the service to determine the matter.
Respondents set forth that the case is moot since petitioner’s application has been adjudicated. When a case is moot, this Court is divested of subject matter jurisdiction due to the lack of case or controversy. Nat’l Adver. Co. v. City of Miami, 402 F.3d 1329, 1332 (11th Cir. 2005).
Petitioner’s argument in favor of this Court’s exclusive jurisdiction relies upon United State v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2004). Hovespian held that once a petitioner has filed a complaint pursuant to section 1447(b), the district court retains exclusive jurisdiction; therefore, a subsequent decision of USCIS adjudicating a petitioner’s application does not render the case moot. Id. at 1164. However, recent decisions have held that the district court and USCIS hold concurrent jurisdiction over the matter after § 1447 (b) is invoked. Al-Saleh v. Gonzales, 2007 WL 990145 (D.Utah 2007); Perry v. Gonzales, 2007 WL 293424 (D.N.J. 2007).
In this instance, denial of the mandamus petition is appropriate according to either view of § 1447(b)’s effect. If concurrent jurisdiction exists, the Court finds that the case has been adjudicated and is therefore moot. If exclusive jurisdiction is proper, petitioner has not provided this Court with any legal or evidentiary ground to find differently from the USCIS’ decision on the merits.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for mandamus relief is DENIED. The
clerk is instructed to close this case.
Dated this 25th day of June, 2007, in Bridgeport, Connecticut.
_____________/s/_____________________
WARREN W. EGINTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
ANALIEFO ANTHONY OKOLOJI, : 3:07cv24(WWE)
Petitioner, ::
v. :
:
MICHAEL CHERTOFF, et al., :
Respondents. :
RULING ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
The petitioner, Analiefo Anthony Okoloji, has brought a petition for mandamus seeking to compel adjudication of his application for citizenship. Respondents assert that the action is moot since petitioner’s application has now been adjudicated. For the following reasons, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
BACKGROUND
On May 23, 2005, petitioner filed a Form N-400 application for citizenship. On October 31, 2005, petitioner was interviewed by a District Adjudication Officer concerning his eligibility for naturalization. On December 9, 2005, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”) denied the petitioner’s N-400 application on the basis of petitioner’s unpaid taxes.
On January 5, 2006, petitioner filed a Request for a N-336 Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings. On May 19, 2006, petitioner attended a hearing on his N-336 application, at which time he was requested to provide further information. Petitioner submitted that requested information.
On January 5, 2007, petitioner filed this complaint for mandamus relief,requesting this Court to compel the respondents to adjudicate the petitioner’s Form N-400 and Form N-366 applications.
In February 2007, respondents sent petitioner a decision on his Form N-366 request for a hearing, adhering to its previous decision to deny his N-400 application for naturalization.
The decision stated:
Information submitted by you indicated that you set up a payment plan in 2003 to address the issue of these overdue taxes. While the information you submitted overcomes the allegation that back taxes were not fully addressed until 2005, it still does not indicate that the debts from 2000, 2001, and 2002 tax years were addressed timely. A review of the tax transcripts that you submitted reveals that on July 19, 2003, an “Intent to Levy Collection Due Process Notice” was issued to you. This notice was issued as a result of your failure to timely pay taxes that were owed from previous tax years. Furthermore, the tax transcripts submitted throughout the statutory period reflect that you were subject to several “failure to pay” tax penalties. Failure to pay owed taxes is an unlawful act that adversely reflects upon your moral character.
In light of the lack of evidence concerning any extenuating circumstances that would have caused petitioner’s failure to pay taxes timely, the USCIS found that plaintiff had not sustained his burden of proof to establish good moral character during the statutorily prescribed period.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner seeks judicial determination of his naturalization application and a declaration that he is entitled to be naturalized. He argues that this Court retains exclusive jurisdiction over the matter and should disregard respondents’ decision. The Court assumes for purposes of this ruling that petitioner’s reliance on §1447(b) is proper.
Petitioner has brought this mandamus action pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b),
which provides, in relevant part1:
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 instruction, to the service to determine the matter.
Respondents set forth that the case is moot since petitioner’s application has been adjudicated. When a case is moot, this Court is divested of subject matter jurisdiction due to the lack of case or controversy. Nat’l Adver. Co. v. City of Miami, 402 F.3d 1329, 1332 (11th Cir. 2005).
Petitioner’s argument in favor of this Court’s exclusive jurisdiction relies upon United State v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2004). Hovespian held that once a petitioner has filed a complaint pursuant to section 1447(b), the district court retains exclusive jurisdiction; therefore, a subsequent decision of USCIS adjudicating a petitioner’s application does not render the case moot. Id. at 1164. However, recent decisions have held that the district court and USCIS hold concurrent jurisdiction over the matter after § 1447 (b) is invoked. Al-Saleh v. Gonzales, 2007 WL 990145 (D.Utah 2007); Perry v. Gonzales, 2007 WL 293424 (D.N.J. 2007).
In this instance, denial of the mandamus petition is appropriate according to either view of § 1447(b)’s effect. If concurrent jurisdiction exists, the Court finds that the case has been adjudicated and is therefore moot. If exclusive jurisdiction is proper, petitioner has not provided this Court with any legal or evidentiary ground to find differently from the USCIS’ decision on the merits.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for mandamus relief is DENIED. The
clerk is instructed to close this case.
Dated this 25th day of June, 2007, in Bridgeport, Connecticut.
_____________/s/_____________________
WARREN W. EGINTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)