1 - OPINION & ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

USANEE THUMAJAREE,

No. 3:13-mc-00436-HZ

Petitioner,

OPINION & ORDER

v.

U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

SERVICES,

Defendant.

Usanee Thumajaree

4905 SW Spencer Ave. #33

Beaverton, OR 97005

Pro Se Plaintiff

James E. Cox, Jr.

U.S. Attorney’s Office

District of Oregon

1000 SW Third Ave., Suite 600

Portland, OR 97204

Attorney for Defendant

Case 3:13-cv-02328-HZ Document 11 Filed 03/30/14 Page 1 of 6
2 - OPINION & ORDER

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Petitioner Usanee Thumajaree seeks to amend the date of birth that appears on her 

naturalization certificate from January 21, 1948 to January 21, 1944. An evidentiary hearing was 

held on March 26, 2014. I grant the petition [1].

BACKGROUND

Petitioner is a naturalized United States citizen and a native of Thailand. Certified 

Admin. R. (“CAR”) 13. Petitioner first entered the United States in December 1975 on an F-1 

student visa. CAR 60. At the hearing, Petitioner stated that she was told to apply for a Social 

Security number, and she did so with her Thai passport. In January 1976, Petitioner requested a 

change in immigrant status to J-2 so that she could join her husband, a Thai citizen who had 

obtained a J-1 visa. CAR 72-73.

Petitioner divorced her husband in November 1982. CAR 67. She remarried in August 

1983, CAR 101, and applied for permanent residence one month later, CAR 38. Petitioner 

became a lawful permanent resident in April 1984. CAR 34-35. Petitioner divorced again in 

June 1985. CAR 29. In June 1989, she petitioned for naturalization. CAR 28-31. Petitioner 

received her naturalization certificate in December 1989. CAR 13.

On November 29, 2009, Petitioner applied for a new naturalization certificate, explaining 

that her birth date on her naturalization certificate was incorrect. CAR 12. In support, Petitioner 

provided her Thai birth certificate and the corresponding English translation, CAR 14-15, 

transcripts from colleges she attended in Thailand, CAR 17-18, a medical insurance card, CAR 

20, and a Social Security statement, CAR 21-24. In January 2010, her request was denied 

because she failed to show that the error in her birth date was due to a clerical error or that the 

asserted date of birth was not supported by her application for naturalization. CAR 6.

Case 3:13-cv-02328-HZ Document 11 Filed 03/30/14 Page 2 of 6
3 - OPINION & ORDER

In December 2013, Petitioner filed this petition to request that the date of birth on her 

naturalization certificate be changed to January 21, 1944, four years earlier than the current date 

of January 21, 1948. Petition 1. Petitioner explained at the hearing that she is unable to renew 

her driver’s license because the birth date on her license differs from her Social Security record. 

The following chart summarizes the discrepancies in Petitioner’s date of birth on various 

documents.

DOCUMENT DOCUMENT DATE BIRTH YEAR

Copy of Thai birth certificate (CAR 14-15) April 2008 1944

Suan Suanandha Teachers College Transcript (CAR 

18)

Unknown 1944

The College of Education (Thailand) Transcript 

(CAR 17)

Unknown 1944

Thai passport (CAR 58) December 1975 1948

Social Security Statement (CAR 21) November 2007 1944

Application to Change to J-2 Status (CAR 72-73) January 1976 1944

Certificate of Marriage to Kipp Fisher (CAR 63) August 1983 1948

Application for Permanent Residence (CAR 36-38) September 1983 1948

United States Information Agency letter regarding 

waiver of foreign residence requirement (CAR 42)

April 1984 1944

Petition for Naturalization (CAR 28-31) June 1989 1948

STANDARD

The petitioner bears the burden of showing that the date on her naturalization certificate 

is incorrect and that the new date asserted is actually the correct date. Kouanchao v. USCIS, 358 

F. Supp. 2d 837, 838 (D. Minn. 2005); Binh Quang Le v. USCIS, No. C11–01871 HRL, 2011 

WL 3678909, at 2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2011). The regulations are resistant to changing birth 

dates for any reason other than clerical error. Varghai v. INS, 932 F. Supp. 1245, 1246 (D. Or. 

1996).

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:13-cv-02328-HZ Document 11 Filed 03/30/14 Page 3 of 6
4 - OPINION & ORDER

DISCUSSION

I. Jurisdiction

District courts have jurisdiction to amend naturalization orders issued before the

Immigration Act of 1990 became effective because those orders were actually issued by the

courts. Binh Quang Le, 2011 WL 3678909, at *1 (citing In re Shrewsbury, No. 94-16736, 1996

WL 64988, at *1 (9th Cir. Feb. 12, 1996) (“the order naturalizing this petitioner was a court 

order, the [district] court had jurisdiction under the prior statute to amend it.”)); see also

Kennedy v. USCIS, 871 F. Supp. 2d 996, 1007 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (citing Shrewsbury to find

district court’s jurisdiction to amend pre-1990 naturalization orders).

The Immigration Act of 1990 transferred the power to naturalize from the judiciary to the

executive branch for naturalization applications filed after October 1, 1991. See Imm.& Nat. Act

of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, § 401(a), 104 Stat. 5046 (Nov. 29, 1990) (codified at 8 U.S.C. §

1421(a)). Here, as in Shrewsbury, petitioner’s naturalization certificate was issued by a court in 

December 1989, before the effective date of the Immigration Act of 1990 and thus, this Court 

has jurisdiction to amend it.

II. Statute of Limitations

Respondent argues that the appropriate statute of limitations is six years and that this

petition is untimely because in 1976, Petitioner stated her birth year was 1944 on her application 

to change to J-2 status. According Respondent, the law in effect at the time Petitioner’s 

naturalization certificate was issued empowered district courts to amend judicial certificates of 

naturalization “within the time prescribed by the rules of procedure or statutes governing the 

jurisdiction of the Court to take such action.” 8 U.S.C. § 1451(i) (1990), repealed Imm. & Nat. 

Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, § 401(a), 104 Stat. 5046 (Nov. 29, 1990). Federal law 

Case 3:13-cv-02328-HZ Document 11 Filed 03/30/14 Page 4 of 6
5 - OPINION & ORDER

provides that “every civil action commenced against the United States shall be barred unless the 

complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues.” 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a).

Respondent has not provided any controlling legal authority in support of its argument. I 

am not persuaded that a petition to correct a naturalization certificate is a “civil action” against 

the United States, as intended by § 2401(a). Petitioner does not allege that Respondent USCIS 

has wronged her. Rather, this petition is the means for Petitioner to correct information on an 

official document. I find that Petitioner is not barred by § 2401(a) from bringing her petition to 

amend the birth date on her naturalization certificate.

III. Analysis

The petition should be granted if (1) there is clear and convincing evidence that the birth 

date on the naturalization certificate is wrong; (2) there is little or no evidence that the Petitioner 

acted fraudulently or in bad faith either when she initially provided the incorrect birth date to

immigration authorities or when she later sought to amend the naturalization certificate; and (3) 

there is reliable evidence supporting the birth date that Petitioner now alleges is correct. Kifle v. 

USCIS Dist. Dir., Portland, Or., No. 12-mc-28-HZ, Sept. 12, 2012 Op. & Order [27] 8 (adopting 

analysis from Hussain v. USCIS, 541 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1087 (D. Minn. 2008)) (citations 

omitted).

Based on Petitioner’s testimony under oath and the documents in the record, particularly 

Petitioner’s Thai birth certificate and Thai college transcripts, there is clear and convincing 

evidence that her birth year on the naturalization certificate is incorrect.1 Likewise, her

testimony and these documents are reliable evidence that 1944 is Petitioner’s correct birth year. 

The remaining element at issue is whether Petitioner acted fraudulently or in bad faith. 

 1 With the exception of her Thai passport issued in 1975, all of Petitioner’s Thai documents show 

1944 as her birth year. Petitioner does not know why her 1975 passport has the incorrect birth 

year of 1948.

Case 3:13-cv-02328-HZ Document 11 Filed 03/30/14 Page 5 of 6
6 - OPINION & ORDER

Petitioner testified that the discrepancies in her birth year were inadvertent. Due to the language 

barrier, Petitioner had assistance in filling out the various documents. She did not notice the 

incorrect birth year of 1948 because in Thailand, the calendar year is counted differently. In 

Thailand, Petitioner’s birth year is 2487, which is equivalent to 1944. Petitioner states that she 

easily remembers her birth year by the Thai calendar, but not the Western equivalent. 

Petitioner’s explanation of the discrepancies is plausible. Additionally, there is no apparent 

motive or gain that Petitioner obtained by using the incorrect birth year. I find that Petitioner did 

not act fraudulently or in bad faith by providing an incorrect birth date.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the petition [1] to correct the birth date on the naturalization is 

granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this day of March, 2014.

 

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02328-HZ Document 11 Filed 03/30/14 Page 6 of 6