Interim Decision #2968 

MATTER OF VILLANUEVA 

In Visa Petition Proceedings 

A-22860111 

Decided by Board June 5, 1884 

Unless void on its face, a valid United States passport issued to 

an individual as a citizen of the United States is not subject to collateral attack in administrative immigration proceedings but constitutes conclusive proof of such person's United States citizenship. 

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: 

Richard Stern-Boswell, Esquire Michael J. Heilman 

Diana Boruchin, Accredited Representative Acting Appellate Trial 

Immigration Clinic Attorney 

George Washington University 

2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 307 Benjamin D. Somera 

Washington, D.C. 20052 General Attorney 

Barbara A. Jones, Esquire 

Daniel C. Harms, Accredited Representative 

Houston Center for Immigrants, Inc. 

2314 Cochran Street 

Houston, Texas 77009 

BY: MaoIlan, Chairman; Maniatis, Dunne, Morris, and Vacca, Board Members 

On November 15, 1983, the district director denied the petition to 

classify the beneficiary as an immediate relative spouse of a United 

States citizen under section 201(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1151(b) (1982). The petitioner has appealed 

from that decision. The record will be remanded. 

The petitioner is a 58-year-old alleged native and citizen of the 

United States. The beneficiary is a 51-year-old native and citizen of 

Mexico. The record contains a certified but unauthenticated copy of 

the parties' apparent marriage certificate which reflects that they 

were married in a civil ceremony on August 26, 1947, in Mexico. 

The petitioner originally submitted a visa petition on behalf of the 

beneficiary on May 17, 1978. On December 21, 1978, the district di101 
Interim Decision #2968 

rector denied that petition, finding that the petitioner had failed to 

establish he was a United States citizen, thereby rendering the 

beneficiary ineligible for classification as an immediate relative 

under section 201(b) of the Act. The district director's decision was 

affirmed by this Board and the petitioner's appeal was dismissed 

on February 5, 1982. 

The petitioner subsequently filed a new petition for the beneficiary. In support of this petition, the petitioner submitted a certified 

copy of two pages from a United States passport issued to him as a 

United States citizen on February 24, 1981, and valid for 5 years, 

along with various other documents and affidavits which the district director considered in his initial 1978 decision. The district director did not find the petitioner's passport to be adequate evidence 

of United States citizenship because he "assumed" it had been 

issued to the petitioner on the basis of his delayed Texas birth certificate, the same document which was previously determined to be 

insufficient proof of his United States citizenship claim. See generally Matter of Serna, 16 I&N Dec. 643 (BIA 1978). Accordingly, the 

district director also denied the instant petition. 

On appeal, the petitioner argues that the district director erred 

by failing to consider the petitioner's United States passport as 

conclusive proof of his United States citizenship, as required by 22 

U.S.C. § 2705 (1982). Based upon the following analysis of this statute, we agree with petitioner's position. 

Prior to enactment of 22 U.S.C. § 2705 (1982), a United States 

passport was regarded only as prima facie evidence of United 

States citizenship. See Peignand v. INS, 440 F.2d 757 (1st Cir. 1971); 

Gillars v. United States, 182 F.2d 962 (D.C. Cir. 1950). Now, however, United States passports are given the same weight for proof of 

United States citizenship as certificates of naturalization or citizenship. Specifically, this statute provides as follows: 

The following documents shall have the same force and effect as proof of United 

States citizenship as certificates of naturalization or of citizenship issued by the 

Attorney General or by a court having naturalization jurisdiction: 

(1) A passport, during its period of validity (if such period is the maximum 

period authorized by law), issued by the Secretary of State to a citizen of the 

United States. 

Accordingly, it is next necessary to examine the force and effect 

given to judicial and administrative certificates of citizenship as 

proof of United States citizenship. 

Unless void on its face, a judicial certificate or decree of naturalization is not subject to impeachment in a collateral proceeding but 

only can be revoked by a direct attack through court proceedings—

a denaturalization suit—prescribed in section 340 of the Act, 8 

102 
Interim Decision #2968 

U.S.C. § 1451 (1982). 41 Op. Att'y Gen. 452 (1960). See generally Johannessen v. United States, 225 U.S. 227 (1912); Mutual Benefit Life 

Insurance Co. v. Tisdale, 91 U.S. 238 (1876); Spratt v. Spratt, 29 U.S. 

(4 Pet.) 393 (1830); MacKay v. McAlexander, 268 F.2d 35 (9th Cir. 

1959), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 961 (1960). Significantly, section 332(e) 

of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1443(e) (1982), also provides that an administrative certificate of citizenship shall have the same effect in all 

public offices of the United States as a judicial certificate of citizenship. Based upon that provision, the Attorney General has issued 

his formal opinion that an administrative certificate of citizenship 

is likewise immune from collateral attack 41 Op. Att'y Gen. 452 

(1960).' Therefore, unless void on its face, an administrative certificate 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 force and 

effect of a United States citizen passport because such a passport is 

equivalent to a judicial or administrative certificate of citizenship 

under the terms of 22 U.S.C. § 2705 (1982). Accordingly, we hold 

that unless void on its face, a valid United. States passport issued to 

an individual as a citizen of the United States is not subject to collateral attack in administrative immigration proceedings but constitutes conclusive proof of such person's United States citizenship.2 

Because the district director did not apply the provisions of 22 

U.S.C. § 2705 (1982) in this case, we find it appropriate to remand 

the record to the district director for his proper consideration 

under the above holding. Thus, the petitioner's apparently valid 

United States citizen passport will constitute conclusive proof of his 

claimed United States citizenship in these visa petition proceedings 

unless it is invalid on its face. 3The district director also should address the validity of the parties' claimed relationship and should 

satisfy himself as to the authenticity of the various foreign documents contained in the record.`4Thereafter, the district director 

The Board and the Service are bound by the formal determinations of the Attorney General. See Matter of Fong, 14 I&N Dec. 670 (BIA 1974). 

2We note that the validity of a United. States passport can be directly attacked 

only under the authority and procedures set forth at 22 C.F.R. 11 51.71, 51.75-76, 

and 51.80-89 (1984). 

Ina-much an the two pages from the petitioner's asserted United States passport 

contained in the record are certified to be true copies only by a private attorney, the 

district director is free to direct that the original passport be submitted for the 

record. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(bX1), 204.2(hX3) (1983). 

4 See 8 C.F.R. § 287.6 (1984); Matter of Lau, 16 MN Dec. 115, 117 (lilA 1916). 

1 OR 
Interim Decision #2968 

will render a new decision based upon the entire record as then 

constituted. 

ORDER: The record is remanded to the district director for 

further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and 

entry of a new decision. 

104