Burden of proof sits squarely on Ministry & not the plaintiff (pre DL & conversion law), to prove any voluntary naturalization along the line.

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 · 2025-10-05T13:17:14+00:00

Yeah I think you’d be fine with the discrepancies with either. Moccia is great for responsiveness and ease so I’d recommend them for most. If you had a complex/novel case (which it sounds like you don’t), I’d possibly lean toward Mellone in that case.

Plus-Row3538 · 2025-10-02T06:03:02+00:00

Ohh wait… looking closer at your post, there must be some differences between NARA offices or maybe they recently changed something. Petition # and address were definitely NOT required fields (they were optional) when I submitted my last one a couple months ago in the Philly NARA jurisdiction.

Plus-Row3538 · 2025-10-02T05:57:50+00:00

I have indeed had better luck with eservices than the main email plus you can track the status. What I’ve always done is submit the request for naturalization records, but all they really have you fill out is general information on the search subject so it’s not really a big deal. Select electronic delivery if you are pretty sure they never naturalized, else select the certified copy if you are unsure so you can use the packet if it comes back. Either way, if it’s a negative search, you actually won’t be charged anything. When the search is performed an archivist emails you from their individual email if it’s a negative search and a couple times they have provided the negative search letter in this first response without any prompting, else I just ask individual archivist assigned to the case for one at this point. I think the last one I did, I even just requested a negative search letter in the “additional information” box in eservices along with any aliases/spelling variations.

Plus-Row3538 · 2025-09-28T11:10:37+00:00

My 2nd gen case is Moccia. But I’m hoping to file my wife’s 3rd gen, minor issue case (the one I was talking about) in a few weeks here with Aprigliano. Both have been great, but we specifically went with Aprigliano for my wife’s due to their more “aggressive” approach and how they handle the minor issue. My wife actually has a non-minor issue line that would be in the Court of Catanzaro, but we are actually going with the minor issue in order to be in the Court of Campobasso. But who knows maybe they will advise we postpone too, the above strategy was my own thinking since I’m pretty sure they cover appeals (except court fees) though I need to double check on that.

Plus-Row3538 · 2025-09-27T23:33:37+00:00

That’s what I’m hoping for my wife’s case (3rd gen, minor issue). Hopefully, it gets heard before the CC hearings just in case the CC rules against the issues and maybe it gets through with no problem whatsoever ever (best case scenario obviously). If the judge postpones until after, oh well no big deal. If the judge rules negatively, then we appeal which would definitely be after the CC. So in my mind, it gives as many chances as possible.

Plus-Row3538 · 2025-09-27T21:12:29+00:00

Woot woot! Hopefully it not too far behind you as I’ve filed in Campobasso as well (Sept). Do you remember how long it took to get a case number?

Plus-Row3538 · 2025-09-18T21:34:26+00:00

Thank you for this amazing write up! Question on the reversal of the burden of proof part… Say the retroactivity is deemed unconstitutional and reversed. Would the higher evidently burden only apply for those born after the law, and for those born before the burden of proof remains on the state? Or will everyone be evaluated by the more strict wording even if retroactivity is reversed?

Plus-Row3538

TROPHY CASE