SARAH LA HO v. USCIS

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
In re SARAH LA HO 	No. 25-mc-54
SARAH LA HO,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
CECCHI, District Judge.
Before the Court is Sarah La Ho’s (“Petitioner”) motion for amendment of her
naturalization certificate. ECF No. 1; see ECF No. 1-1 (“Moving Br.”). The United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) “takes no position as to Petitioner’s motion.”
ECF No. 4. The Court decides Petitioner’s motion without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b);
L. Civ. R. 78.1(b). For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant Petitioner’s motion.
Petitioner was born in Vietnam and came to the United States with her family after the fall
of Saigon. Moving Br. at 2–3; see also id. at 3 (“When the Communists took over South Vietnam
on April 30, 1975, they immediately arrested Petitioner’s father at his office and imprisoned him
in a re-education camp for six months.”); ECF No. 1-2, Ex. 2 ¶¶ 9–29. Petitioner was paroled as
a refugee on September 20, 1979; gained legal permanent resident status on October 26, 1981; and
became a naturalized citizen on March 19, 1985. Moving Br. at 4.
Petitioner’s documents record her birthday as March 12, 1966. See id. at 4–5 (citing ECF
No. 1-2, Exs. 3–5). According to Petitioner, however, she was born on August 13, 1963. Id. at 2
(citing ECF No. 1-2, Ex. 1). Petitioner states that this error stems from a combination of factors.
For instance, she states that when her family arrived in the United States (by way of Malaysia),
Case 2:25-mc-00054-CCC Document 6 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID: <pageID>

2
her family received I-94 travel documents, which listed the incorrect birthday for her and many of
her family members. Id. at 4–5. However, because nobody in her family spoke English, the family
was unable to correct these errors. Id. Moreover, Petitioner states that during her family’s escape
from Vietnam, the boat on which her family traveled was “so severely damaged that it began to
sink before they reached the shores of Malaysia” and then “sank with all of their belongings on
it,” including their “vital [personal] documents” (e.g., birth certificates). Id. at 3. Because
Petitioner’s family did not have access to these personal documents, she states that she was unable
to correct her birthday on her green card and naturalization documents. Id. at 4–5.
Petitioner states that, around 2007, her father “went back to Vietnam” and was able to
“obtain[] . . . legal proof of her actual date of birth,” August 13, 1963, in the form of a birth
certificate. Id. at 5. Petitioner now asks the Court “to correct a mistake made 40 years ago, through
no fault of her own, as she was a minor, so that she may rectify the record.” Id. at 6.
Federal law—specifically the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. §
1421(a)—vests “‘sole authority’ over naturalization of persons as citizens in the Executive
Branch.” In re La (“La”), No. 23-MC-33, 2023 WL 8189337, at *3 (D.N.J. Nov. 27, 2023).
Accordingly, “[w]here the USCIS has issued a naturalization certificate, a federal court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction to amend it.” Id. However, “the federal courts retain jurisdiction to
modify a court-issued certificate of naturalization issued prior to the passage of the INA.” Id. at
*4 (citing Collins v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 820 F.3d 1096, 1100 (9th Cir. 2016), and
Sinha v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., No. 10-215, 2011 WL 4594144, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept.
30, 2011)). Therefore, because Petitioner received her certificate of naturalization from this Court
in 1985, years before Congress passed the INA, the Court has jurisdiction over her motion. Id.;
see ECF No. 1-2, Ex. 4.
Case 2:25-mc-00054-CCC Document 6 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID: <pageID>

3
To modify the birthday listed on a certificate of naturalization, the petitioner “bears the
burden to demonstrate that the birth date on his Certificate of Naturalization is incorrect.” Sinha,
2011 WL 4594144, at *2. Courts are generally “resistant to changing birth dates for any reason
other than clerical error on the part of U.S. officials.” La, 2023 WL 8189337, at *4 (citation
omitted). However, “even in the absence of a clerical error, courts in this District have
contemplated amending the date of birth on a certificate ‘where the [petitioner] provides
unequivocal evidence as to his true date of birth or where there is no evidence of fraud and no
prejudice results to the government.’” Id. (citation omitted).
The Court finds Petitioner’s uncontested evidence—including her birth certificate and
evidence related to her family’s remarkable journey—sufficient to establish that her certificate of
naturalization should be amended.1 Id. at *5; see ECF No. 1-2, Exs. 1–5. Among other things,
Petitioner has provided an official birth certificate from Vietnam, which lists her birthday as
August 13, 1963. ECF No. 1-2, Ex. 1; see Hue Ly La, 2024 WL 4136485, at *4; La, 2023 WL
8189337, at *5. She has also put forth sufficient evidence to show that the existing error on her
certificate of naturalization is not the result of fraud or other misconduct. Hue Ly La, 2024 WL
4136485, at *4. For example, Petitioner asserts that her original birth certificate was lost during
her family’s chaotic journey by sea, see ECF No. 1-2, Ex. 2 ¶¶ 8–22, and “[o]ther courts have
found an absence of fraud in similar circumstances,” Hue Ly La, 2024 WL 4136485, at *4
(collecting cases). And concerning prejudice to the Government, the Court (1) notes that the
USCIS does not oppose Petitioner’s motion to amend, ECF No. 4, and (2) does not see how
amendment would prejudice the Government in any way. Hue Ly La, 2024 WL 4136485, at *5;
1 The Court notes that Petitioner’s motion is essentially identical to the motions granted by the
Court in In re Hue Ly La (“Hue Ly La”), No. 23-MC-34, 2024 WL 4136485 (D.N.J. Sept. 9, 2024),
and La, 2023 WL 8189337. Ms. Hue Ly La is Petitioner’s relative and Ms. Catherine Tina La is
Petitioner’s sister. See Moving Br. at 5–6.
Case 2:25-mc-00054-CCC Document 6 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID: <pageID>

4
see also La, 2023 WL 8189337, at *6 (“The Court finds, and the United States points to, no reason
to doubt Petitioner’s declaration that she has not received any benefit from the United States
government by using the incorrect date of birth.”).
Accordingly, IT IS on this 9th day of October 2026,
ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for amendment of her naturalization certificate (ECF
No. 1) is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that Petitioner’s certificate of naturalization shall be amended to reflect
Petitioner’s true date of birth, August 13, 1963. See ECF No. 1-2, Ex. 1; and it is further
ORDERED that Petitioner shall file a Form N-565, Application for Replacement
Naturalization/Citizenship Document, in accordance with USCIS’s instructions. See N-565,
Application for Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship Document, U.S. Citizenship & Immigr.
Servs., https://www.uscis.gov/n-565. To the extent practicable, Petitioner shall attach a copy of
this Memorandum Order to her application; and it is further
ORDERED that the Office of the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this
Memorandum Order on the District Director of the USCIS at Peter Rodino Federal Building, 970
Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey 07102 by regular U.S. mail; and it is finally
ORDERED that the Office of the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this matter.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Claire C. Cecchi
CLAIRE C. CECCHI, U.S.D.J.
Case 2:25-mc-00054-CCC Document 6 Filed 10/09/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID: <pageID>