ISSUES FOR REVIEW:

1- Whether a DE NOVO REVIEW is beneficial to me? given that the DC judge

found jurisdiction but declinened to grant relief ( claiming that he could NOT
order the AG to grant my Natz in violation of the law)( 4th and 6th circs ruled
diff, and 4thcirc granted Natz to an alian who was in proceedings charged with
obtaining LPR status by fraud Ngwana v. Attny Gen.)what if the 2 Circ
comes back and says DCJ didn’t even have jurisdiction.? then I
would have to ask for a rehearing?
2- Bcs I filed my 1447b petition in the DC after the issuance of the NTA but
prior to filing it with immig court (meaning that my petition for Natz was filed
prior to being in removal , 8 CFR 1239.1(a) states the removal proceeding
begins with the filing of the NTA with immig court), in turn the DCJ gained
exclusive jurisdiction over my Natz petition at the time of filing of the
complaint (Hovsepian V. USA 9 circ), exclusive in the sense that even if the
CIS later denied the application for Natz , that would be legaly irrelavant.
Question is : How would Exclusive jurisdiction apply in my
case, where DHS initiated removal proceedings and did not
deny ( although I claimed they effectively denied it)?
3- While my petition was Pending with the DC , I asked the DC for an
Injunctive relief enjoining DHS from instituting removal proceedings
based on Equittable estopple ( due to their affirmative misconduct for
depriving me the oppty to apply for a waiver when I was both Required
by law and Eligible to apply based on my approved I- 130) and Res
Judicata and other consitutional claims based on selective prosecution .
The judge ruled that 1252(g) precludes the court from interefering with
removal proceedings.
Many courts have ruled that 1252(g) should be read narrowly and
cannot be read to affect cases that exhibit a violation of constitution.
Question : What constitutional claims that could be argued in
my case (other than selective prosc.) that does/does not
interefere with AG discretionary power to institute removal
proceeedings.? Is Due process one of them,given that : (a) I
am being subjected to yet another discretionary decision when
a discretionary decision has already been made in 1996 and in
2006 when they approved my Natz? (b)the BIA or IJ is unlikely
to grant a 212 h nunc pro tunc waiver in this case due to an
existing case law in that regard. What caselaw supporting a
Habeus Corpus in this case ( especially that Im now considered
 detained even though im not Physically and could very
possibly be detained upon re-entry)?
Can we take the issue of Lawfully Admitted to the DC on a
Habues Corpus/Question of law (yet equittably and collaterally
estopping DHS from making that claim, an estopple that the
IJ/BIA don’t have jurisdiction over but DC do!! Prior to any
irreparable harm and considering that im being prejuidiced by
DHS actions.)

4- Does 1429 still apply when the AG had already considered my

Natz Application , approved it, yet reopen it based on facts
already known to AG both at the time adjustment and the time
of Natz. The DCJ should’ve addressed this issue/the issue of
whether the reopening of my Natz strictly complied with the
INA, regardless of whether the Pro Se litigant stated that as a
part of relief?Also considering that at the time of the oath
ceremony I was not technically IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS, bcs
the NTA has not been filed with the IJ until 2 months
later?whether the Issuance of the NTA( based on Known
facts/arrests) without filing it with the IJ is to be considered a
new derrogatory info. Is in compliance with INA 335.5 and
334.5?

334.5 reads:
§ 334.5, entitled “Amendment of application for naturalization; reopening
proceedings,” provides that
[a]ny substantive amendments which affect the jurisdiction or the decision on the
merits of the application will not be authorized. When the Service is in receipt of any
information that would indicate that an application for naturalization should not have
been granted on the merits, the Service may institute proceedings to reopen the
application before admission to citizenship, or to revoke the naturalization of a
person who has been admitted to citizenship, in accordance with section 340 of the
Act and § 335.5 of this chapter.

The CA5 stated in Baidas v. Jenifer:

Under these regulations (INA 334.5, 335.5), the INS appears not to have discretion simply to
revoke an application once granted, or to refuse to schedule a successful applicatnt for the taking
of the oath,even though information comes to light indicating the application should not have
been granted. SeePatel v. INS, No. 98CV1937 JCH, 2000 WL 298921 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 20, 2000).
Such an action would constitute a “substantive amendment[],” which “will not be authorized.” It
appears that the INS must follow the provisions of § 335.5, with the result that the INS must
make “a motion to reopen the previously adjudicated application, giving the applicant 15 days to
respond.” If the INS does not have reason to make a motion to reopen, then § 335.3 applies,
under which “[t]he applicant shall be notified that the application has been granted [and] . . . of
the procedures to be followed for the administration of the oath of allegiance pursuant to part 337
of this chapter.”

5- DCJ abused his discretion by failing to consider several claims,

including the declaration of the plaintiff as a US citizen / National of the
US,and by making a finding that plaintiff was literally turned back at
the door of the ceremony , without asking the plaintiff a single question
about what had occurred when the plaintiff appeared for the ceremony.
The plaintiff stated in his complaint that he was excused from the
ceremony after signing and reading the oath of alegiance and a
number of other documents that included a voter registration card ,
where he was asked to indicate that he was a US citizen and to sign it
accordingly.
6- The govt in this case is flip flopping around the issue of Naturalization,
one 1 hand they say I could ask the Judge to terminate based on prima
facie proof of eligibility for Natz on the other hand they say I was NOT
lawfully admitted thus im not eligible???
7- A claim that should ve been addressed by the DC judge is whether I am
prima facie eligible for Natz…. as in Gattliff V. INS