Opinion ID: 1195623
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ajlani's Unsuccessful Efforts to Acquire United States Citizenship

Text: In April 2004, Ajlani filed for United States citizenship, submitting to the requisite initial examination on August 9,2005. [3] See 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(a); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1446(b). On March 27, 2006, his application was granted. Before Ajlani publicly took the oath of allegiance necessary to become a United States citizen, see id. § 1448, he departed this country and attempted to re-enter through Canada on September 22, 2006. This event apparently prompted border officials to take a closer look at Ajlani's immigration status. Based on his record of prior convictions, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) served Ajlani with a written notice directing him to appear for removal proceedings in Manhattan on October 10, 2006. [4] When Ajlani appeared before an immigration judge on October 10, 2006, to address possible removal, the proceedings were terminated because the government had not filed the appropriate documents with the Immigration Court to initiate [Ajlani's] hearing. Notice of Immigration Ct., Oct. 10, 2006; see 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.14(a), 1239.1(a). That same day, in what the district court aptly described as an apparent instance of one department failing to communicate with another, other immigration authorities sent Ajlani a notice to appear at a naturalization oath ceremony on October 18, 2006. Ajlani v. Chertoff, No. 06 Civ. 5872, order at 2 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2007). On October 17, 2006, the New York District Director of USCIS issued a Motion to Reopen Ajlani's naturalization proceedings pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 335.5 (providing for reopening based on receipt of derogatory information concerning an applicant whose application has already been granted . . . but who has not yet taken the oath of allegiance). Thus, when Ajlani appeared at the next day's naturalization ceremony at the federal courthouse in Brooklyn, he was not allowed publicly to take the oath of citizenship. Instead, he was served with the Motion to Reopen, which stated, inter alia, that the Service proposes to reconsider the decision to grant your Application for Naturalization and that, [o]nce the review on your case has been completed, your case will be rescheduled for the Naturalization Ceremony. Motion to Reopen, Oct. 17, 2006. On December 20, 2006, the government formally commenced removal proceedings against Ajlani by filing a notice to appear with the immigration court. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a) (Jurisdiction vests, and proceedings before an Immigration Judge commence, when a charging document is filed with the Immigration Court by the Service.); id. § 123 9.1(a) (providing that [e]very removal proceeding conducted under section 240 of the [Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952(INA), Pub.L. No. 82-414, § 240, 66 Stat. 163, 204 (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. § 1229a)] to determine the deportability or inadmissibility of an alien is commenced by the filing of a notice to appear with the immigration court). A few days later, on December 26, 2006, the immigration court issued a written notice to Ajlani directing him to appear for a master removal hearing on January 23, 2007. At oral argument the parties confirmed that, as a result of a series of adjournments largely attributable to agency docket backlogs, the question of Ajlani's removal remains pending.