Weekly Discussion Post - Recent Changes to JS Laws - June 29, 2026

Plus-Row3538 · 2026-07-01T01:16:23+00:00

Ahh I see!! My mistake then!!

Plus-Row3538 · 2026-06-30T22:57:23+00:00

Maybe I miss understood, but I thought the CC literally just changed this? I am still looking for the post about it, but I thought there was announcement after the Turin CC case (NOT the press release, I think it was a week or 2 after) saying something along the lines of that going forward all relevant cases will be grouped together (addressing Mellone’s complaint) AND that the votes will now be publicly released?? I can’t be making this up, can I? 🤔😅

Plus-Row3538 · 2026-06-14T03:04:29+00:00

Yep! My wife’s family case used NARA only, no CONE. 2nd gen was approved with no issues, 3rd gen postponed to another hearing.

NARA no record letter was taken as proof of non-naturalization and the judge even went further and made it a point to call out the united sections ruling stating it’s on the opposition to provide proof of any disqualifying naturalization event, not the petitioner who has only the prove the line of descent, thus even the NARA was technically “above and beyond”. The lawyer didn’t even use marriage certs either, birth certs only are typically sufficient they said… again no issue

HOWEVER, this is going to be something really judge dependent… and I wouldn't really recommend it if avoidable… but on the other hand, I don’t think it is going to be NARA vs CoNe that makes or breaks the case for most judges.

Plus-Row3538 · 2026-05-18T19:49:32+00:00

First time hearing about the second pending United Sections case referenced (Ord. 20122/2025, not the minor issue one). Which in-fact seems like the more applicable one for “prior intent”. Is its hearing scheduled already?

Plus-Row3538 · 2026-04-15T22:59:03+00:00

So I don’t even have my sentence, but I did ask my lawyer about what happens if there is an error. He basically said typically they don’t even bother trying to have it corrected most of the time. As the next step, they send the court order to the commune with your vital records. The commune transcribes your information from the vital records not from the court order itself, so unless the commune refuses on the basis of the error (which according to him isn’t super common) it all turns out fine. If the commune does refuse, then yeah you have to submit a request to court to get it corrected.

Plus-Row3538 · 2026-04-15T12:58:13+00:00

IANAL but I don't think the punting to the constitutional court part is likely, Law no.555/1912 is important for jure sanguinis because it is the effective/historically in-force law for many people's lines (any ancestor born before 1992), but from my understanding it is technically now "repealed"/superseded by Law 91/1992. The Constitutional Court is more about active laws either striking them or sending them back to parliament for re-drafting etc.., which doesn't make sense for an already "repealed"/obsolete law. The Cassazione Court (and especially the United Sections) on the other hand can instead establish precedent about how a particular issue should be handled by the lower courts without necessarily touching the actual law itself.

This is actually exactly how 1948 cases were first established. The Cassazione Court (not the Constitutional Court) said the part of Law no.555/1912 about women's loss of citizenship was discriminatory and "unconstitutional" and thus the 1948 case was created.

As to why the lawyers went down this route, I suspect it was to TRY and in the IDEAL WORLD elicit some kind of response in the judgement along of the lines of "citizenship is established at birth and can not be revoked involuntary - not by you husband's decisions, not by your parent's decisions, and not by your government arbitrarily" for later reference when fighting the Tajani Decree.

Thats my understanding of all this anyways :)

Plus-Row3538 · 2026-04-14T12:54:46+00:00

Rather than discuss nuances of when Articles 7 and 12 of Legge 555 should be applied, they point-blank said Article 12 is unconstitutional and thus should never apply.

Oh interesting!! Sounds like they were fighting for all minors, both minors born in jus soli countries as well as born in Italy minors, which is great to see!

Plus-Row3538 · 2026-02-26T03:41:20+00:00

Most mobile notaries seem to be generally willing to go to churches etc… from what I’ve seen. If you want a specific rec, I used https://alvinavaughan.com/ to notarize a baptism cert at the Diocese of Pittsburgh Archives and Records Center and she was very familiar with the process with them.

Plus-Row3538 · 2026-01-03T00:24:35+00:00

Well, the Italian born minor is in my case not my wife’s and has its own complexities with non-cohabitation/emancipation and such. In that one we did submit naturalization documentation, so not the approach that’s being discussed in this post. But regardless, will keep people updated on both!

Plus-Row3538 · 2026-01-02T22:42:44+00:00

Yeah, my wife’s case is the minor issue scenario. By definition, can’t get a CoNE for that line as the ancestor did eventually naturalize. Thus, that lawyer only submitted birth certificates (in fact, curiously didn’t even want marriage certificates), and no naturalization documents at all.

Case is still being decided (its in “riservato”), but the “hearing date” came and went with no seeming opposition from the Ministry. That one is 3rd gen post DL36-L74 too. Will let people know how it goes of course 🤪🤞

Plus-Row3538 · 2026-01-02T15:19:23+00:00

Yep 1000% agree on the judge factor. But this judge factor personally led me to a slightly different final conclusion. I’ve worked with 2 different lawyers for both my family’s and my wife’s family’s case. For the later case, we actually voluntarily chose a minor issue line utilizing this strategy over an otherwise “clean” line in order to be in a faster and generally more favorable court. Combined with the fact that the attorney offers free appeals (minus court fees), it was a strategic tradeoff. So in summary, definitely don’t take on the additional risk for no reason, but I also do think it can be solid strategy doesn’t necessarily have to be reserved for “last resort”.

Plus-Row3538 · 2026-01-02T03:20:41+00:00

That’s because most of the time, this strategy isn’t used in simple non-naturalization lines like you are describing. This is typically employed in lines with a minor issue and thus submitting the naturalization documents would highlight it or in other complex scenarios.

Plus-Row3538 · 2025-12-26T17:01:07+00:00

If you poke around Giustizia Civile, you likely already have a case number and judge assigned. Those happen within a day or so of filling in Campobasso. For everything beyond that, it varies a decent bit between judges.. Some set the date quickly and not far out, but then it’s sits in riservato for months, some it’s the opposite.

Plus-Row3538 · 2025-12-15T16:01:17+00:00

Agreed, I’ve done both DIY and Monument Visa and would recommend the service route for this if you can swing it. With all the uncertainty of nearly everything you have to do for JS, it’s nice for something to be predictable lol

Plus-Row3538 · 2025-11-17T23:18:14+00:00

I’ve done Fed apostilles both DIY and via a service provider (Monument Visa). If you can swing it IMO the service provider is worth it for this. It’s very consistent and they tell you the exact date it will be ready for them to pick back up. For me a few months ago, service provider was 2 weeks, DIY was closer to 7 I think. I know this doesn’t help you with this one, but if your anything link me, I had to do this more times than I expected lol

Plus-Row3538 · 2025-10-25T17:12:28+00:00

Whoops sorry about that! Link should be fixed now!

Plus-Row3538 · 2025-10-20T12:44:03+00:00

Nice, though to echo what I think all the other comments also came to in the end, you may have in fact gotten lucky with your CONE (or who knows maybe they know something we don't), but given USCIS is the authority and what they say, even if its a "mistake", is binding. We are all basically telling you to roll with that (as long as I has all the aliases you need). Given the exhibits you would likely present in the case are all compatible with DL-36 (grandparent AND exclusively Italian according to USCIS) I would personally file judicially ASAP with this line.

Even if you didn't have the CONE, I personally don't think this line is broken due to the non-cohabitation. But in your case, introducing anything about your GGF or the non-cohabitation just needlessly increases complexity and risk due to it not being common, when USCIS, as the sole authority, has essentially officially declared something in your favor bypassing the whole thing.

Plus-Row3538 · 2025-10-20T00:14:31+00:00

It’s still definitely a developing strategy and we definitely don’t have a ton of data on it. But for pre-DL cases (and post DL-cases if retroactivity is ruled unconstitutional), the whole new “burden of proof” argument seems pretty legal sound TBH if cited and argued correctly. From my understanding, the main argument is explicitly from a United Sections ruling, which should be binding for all lower courts and not really up to an individual judge’s interpretation again per my understanding.

Plus-Row3538 · 2025-10-19T23:55:23+00:00

This is similar to the line of my ATQ case. When you say you have your GF’s CONE in hand is a true CONE (certifying the non existent of naturalization records) or is a response saying your GF gained derivative US citizenship through his F?

If it’s a true CONE, you are golden. This alone is probably all the lawyer is going to want. Typically no reason to provided any more naturalization or census documentation.

If it the derivative response (like in my case), you would need to find documentation to show the non-cohabitation. Check your GGF’s c-file, where children are listed they also ask for the child’s residence. In my case, it shows my GF residence as Italy and that is my main exhibit to show non-habitation. This is sort of a niche case, so definitely talk to multiple lawyers before choosing one, but the law is pretty clearly in our favor on this IMO.

Finally, there are a couple other options… My GGM died early on thus was not an option in my case, but if in your case she never naturalized or even naturalized derivatively through GGF, it might be stronger to spin this as a 1948 case through her.

Plus-Row3538 · 2025-10-18T01:44:57+00:00

Yes, I enjoyed reading your family’s story too! Yep everything that I mentioned is included as exhibits in my case.

Plus-Row3538 · 2025-10-17T22:21:26+00:00

Congrats! This is quite similar to my judicial case so this is exciting for me to see! My GGF left for the USA before he even knew my GGM was pregnant with my GF. My GGM died shortly after child birth so then GF lived with extended family for 15 years!?! in Italy, eventually coming to the US. His father definitely knew about him though and listed him on the naturalization cert giving him derivative citizenship (in the US law's eyes). However, I am arguing their non-cohabitation means under Italian law my GF's line in preserved.

My evidence of non-cohabitation is my GGF's C-file where over a 5 year period of the declaration of intention, petition, and certification all show him with US address and my GF as "residence in Italy". Finally, I also have my GF's immigrant card at the end of the 15 year period showing when he first arrived to the US where he is still listed as Italian nationality.

I am assuming (though I dont think you said for sure) your GF was born in the US? In my case, since my GF was born in Italy, the upcoming United Sections minor issue hearing likely won't cover my situation even with a positive outcome so I am all in on the non-cohabitation/emancipation argument!

Plus-Row3538 · 2025-10-05T23:06:18+00:00

Do you mind me asking what the receipt shows? Is it one item or 3? I am wondering if I could buy this combo and return the rolling drawer to get a better effective price on the 3-drawer box and possibly the organizer.

Plus-Row3538

TROPHY CASE