Source: http://ilw.com/articles/2012,0216-Whalen.shtm
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 00:19:17+00:00

Document:
In an "as yet" non-precedential AAO Decision at: Dec022010_01E2309.pdf, AAO has affirmatively stated its position on the jurisdictional question of citizenship claims at least between itself and EOIR. AAO has also pointed out the potential value of testimony before an IJ on certain questions of fact. While the findings of fact made through testimony will be given significant weight, it appears that AAO may review such findings for substantial evidence and/or clear errors. Perhaps this will be reflected in the upcoming AAO Rulemaking (more on that in the conclusion).
"U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is not bound by a determination of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) that an applicant is a U.S. citizen. An immigration judge may credit an individual's citizenship claim in the course of terminating removal proceedings for lack of jurisdiction because the government has not established the individual's alienage by clear and convincing evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(a), (c) (prescribing that the government bears the burden of proof to establish alienage and removability or deportability by clear and convincing evidence). The immigration judge's decision regarding citizenship, however, is not binding on USCIS. USCIS retains sole jurisdiction to issue a certificate of citizenship and the agency's decision is reviewable only by the federal courts, not EOIR. Sections 34l(a) and 360 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1452(a), 1503; 8 C.F.R. 341.1; see also Minasyan v. Gonzalez, 401 F.3d at 1074 n.7 (noting that the immigration court had no jurisdiction to review the agency's denial of Minasyan's citizenship claim). In addition, while the government bears the burden of proof to establish an individual's alienage in removal proceedings before EOIR; in certificate of citizenship proceedings before USCIS, the applicant bears the burden of proof to establish the claimed citizenship by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 34l(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1452(a); 8 C.F.R. § 341.2(c).
As for the value of an erroneously issued passport, AAO addressed that issue in two related "as yet" non-precedential decisions at:Aug182011_01E2309.pdf. Jul172009_12E2309.pdf. AAO explained that USCIS will not be bound by the mere presence of a passport when clear and convincing evidence in the applicant's case file supports a conclusion that the applicant has NOT attained U.S. citizenship.
AAO definitively addressed the legal basis for the Director's Decision to deny the N-600. AAO specifically noted that the Ninth Circuit case relied upon by counsel was not controlling in the instant citizenship claim case which arose in the Third Circuit and that it was distinguishable from it. Additionally, the New York law applicable to the parents' marital status also refuted the claim to a legally cognizable separation by the claimant's parents. The applicable New York Domestic Relations Law had already been addressed by the Second Circuit within the citizenship claim context in Lewis v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 125 (2nd Cir. 2007).
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.
An unexpired United States passport issued for 5 or 10 years is now considered prima facie evidence of U.S. citizenship. Because it does not provide the actual basis upon which citizenship was acquired or derived, the submission of additional documentation may be required or the passport file may be requested. If after review there are differences or discrepancies between the USCIS information and the Passport Office records which would indicate that the application should not be approved, no action should be taken until the Passport Office has an opportunity to review and decide whether to revoke the passport.
The basic facts of the case were laid out the same in both decisions. The following excerpt is from the 2011 AAO Decision. The first paragraph is applicable to the underlying citizenship claim. The second paragraph tells us what eventually happened with the passport and finds a way to discount it.
"The record reflects that the applicant was born on July 29, 1965 in Panama. The applicant's parents are The applicant's parents were married in 1965 and divorced in 1985. The applicant's father became a U.S. citizen upon his naturalization on September 12, 1984. The applicant's mother was naturalized on December 21, 1982. The applicant was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on August 24, 1977. The applicant's eighteenth birthday was on July 29, 1983. The applicant seeks a certificate of citizenship pursuant to former section 321 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1432 (repealed).
Abstract: This proposed rule revises the requirements and procedures for the filing of motions and appeals before the Department's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and its Administrative Appeals Office. The proposed changes are intended to streamline the existing processes for filing motions and appeals and will reduce delays in the review and appellate process. This rule also makes additional changes necessitated by the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and its components.
Additional Information: Previously 1615-AB29 (CIS 2311-04), which was withdrawn in 2007. DHS has included this rule in its Final Plan for the Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations, which DHS issued on August 22, 2011.
Keep on the look-out for progress on these matters. I will.

References: § 1240
 v. 
 § 1452
 § 341
 v. 
 § 1432