By: John Richardson – June 15, 2026
Prologue
On July 18, 2017 the Washington Post included a section describing:
“Notable Deaths in the Washington, area”
“Alan James, lawyer, State Dept. officer
Alan James, 96, a lawyer who specialized in admiralty law and a State Department officer who served as a delegate to international panels on laws of the sea, died June 13 at a hospital in Bethesda, Md. The cause was heart ailments, said a daughter, Anne James.
Mr. James, a Bethesda resident, was born in Brooklyn. In the 1950s, he began his State Department career as an administrative and political counselor specializing in maritime matters. He was a political counselor at U.S. embassies in London and Paris as well as a delegate to laws of the seas treaty conferences. From 1982 to 1995, he chaired the State Department Board of Appellate Review, which reviews individual nationality cases. He was an avocational scholar who specialized in the works of Henry James (no relation).”
The announcement included the fact that:
“From 1982 to 1995, he chaired the State Department Board of Appellate Review, which reviewed individual nationality cases.”
Put simply, the “Board of Appellate Review” was an administrative body within the State Department that reviewed the cases, of individuals who were issued “Certificates of Loss of Nationality” and wished to remain U.S. citizens. An interesting analysis of how the Board of Appellate analyzed requests for citizenship restoration is here.
The work and importance of the Board of Appellate Review was largely generated by the 1980 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Vance vs. Terrazas. Alan G. James was the “Chairman” of the “Board Of Appellate Review” during this particularly important period in U.S. nationality law.
The “Law Explore” article confirms that:
Between the years 1980 and 1996, the Board of Appellate Review reviewed 669 contested cases of expatriation. This number includes all appeals made regarding expatriation (594), motions for reconsideration for those appeals (52), and several cases regarding the renewal of passports and immigration (23). Here, I will present statistics on such matters as the number of cases each year, the grounds for the revocation of citizenship, and the outcome of the appeal. The limitation of such a report is that it misses out on the complexities and uniqueness of each deliberation. Each one of the persons who lost his or her citizenship and appealed to the board had unique circumstances, gave explanations for his or her deeds, and made verbal presentations, and members of the board made enormous efforts to capture these in their deliberations. For this reason, I also describe in depth several of the cases and present the different elements that persuaded the board members to affirm or reverse the administrative decision of expatriation. My aim is not to question any specific decision made by the board members but to identify the underlying assumptions of the board regarding the idea of citizenship, and more specifically the notion that citizenship ought not to be divided or multiple.
The Supreme Court in Vance v. Terrazas (1980) held that in order to take away citizenship, the government had to prove that the expatriating act was made with the intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Theoretically, this decision should have ended the decades of debates regarding the legitimacy of forced expatriation. The verdict maintained that only the citizen could determine whether to cease being American. It was the citizen’s intent, not only his or her disloyal or questionable act, which would be the benchmark for any expatriation decision. From a legal perspective, two major questions remained: “What is intent?” and “What acts or statements should be weighed in ascertaining intent?” The Board of Appellate Review was, in practice, the body that formulated the answers to these questions.1
https://lawexplores.com/the-board-of-appellate-review/
The 1980 Vance v Terrazas decision created the legal principles and awareness which provided the incentives and the legal arguments to challenge loss of citizenship. Vance v. Terrazas essentially did two things:
1. It reinforced the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Afroyim v. Rusk which decreed that Congress could not strip (born or naturalized U.S. citizens) of their citizenship without their consent.
2. It confirmed that the evidentiary standard for proof of voluntariness and intention was on a “balance of probabilities”. As discussed here, this lower evidentiary standard was NOT welcome news for those who wished to preserve their U.S. citizenship.
During the period from 1980 to 1995 – mostly when Alan James was Chair – the Board of Appellate Review apparently “reviewed 669 cases of loss of nationality. Although not a large number of cases, the guidance and wisdom reflected in the decisions was extraordinary. These published decisions represent the very best (and except for a few court decisions) the only real repository on the law of relinquishment of U.S. nationality.
I recently filed a lengthy and difficult appeal of loss of U.S. citizenship under the modern 22 cfr 50.51 standard. In preparing this appeal I referenced many of the written decisions (mostly authored by Alan James) of the Board of Appellate Review.
I remember meeting Mr.James sometime in the mid 1980s. At the time, I was assisting a U.S. citizen living in Canada. who was concerned that by naturalizing as a Canadian, that he might lose his U.S. citizenship. In 1985 that was a very reasonable fear. The fear was reasonable because it was not until the early 1990s that the U.S. government adopted an administrative presumption that presumed naturalization was accompanied by an intent to remain a U.S. citizen.This presumption is found in the regulations here. Never did I imagine that approximately 40 years later I would be reviewing so much of Alan James’s written work.
The official end of the Board of Appellate Review – 2008
As described in the Federal Register, the Board of Appellate Review was officially dissolved in 2008 (13 years after the retirement of Alan James). It’s worth documenting the history.
October 20, 2008
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2008/10/20/E8-24472/board-of-appellate-review-review-of-loss-of-nationality
SUMMARY:
This rule eliminates the Department’s Board of Appellate Review (L/BAR), which had been authorized to review certain Department determinations, in particular those related to loss of citizenship and passport denials. Because L/BAR’s jurisdiction has been superseded or made obsolete, and in large part replaced by review of loss of citizenship and passport matters by the Bureau of Consular Affairs, this rule eliminates L/BAR and authorizes on a discretionary basis an alternative, less cumbersome review of loss of nationality determinations by the Bureau of Consular Affairs.
July 18, 2008
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2008/07/18/E8-16247/board-of-appellate-review-review-of-loss-of-nationality
Elimination of Board of Appellate Review (L/BAR)
The Board of Appellate Review, which is part of the Office of the Legal Adviser for administrative purposes and thus referred to by the acronym “L/BAR,” was established to provide a mechanism for appeal of certain administrative decisions of the Department of State. However, as described below, its jurisdiction has been superseded or made obsolete for several years, replaced in large part by review of loss of citizenship and passport matters by the Bureau of Consular Affairs. This rule accordingly reflects current departmental practice and organization related to review of loss of citizenship.
As a result of consolidations through subsequent regulations, 22 CFR 7.3 currently provides that L/BAR is responsible for appeals from: (1) Administrative decisions of loss of nationality or expatriation; (2) administrative decisions denying, revoking, restricting or invalidating a passport under certain provisions; (3) final decisions of contracting officers not otherwise provided for in the Department’s contract appeal regulations; (4) administrative determinations under 22 CFR 64.1(a) denying assistance to U.S. nationals who do not comply with the Fair Labor Standards in 22 CFR 61.2; and, (5) administrative decisions in such other cases and under such terms of reference as the Secretary authorizes.
Amendments to Federal statutes and regulations other than 22 CFR part 7 have significantly narrowed L/BAR authorities, and thus very few or no appeals are brought to it. Although 22 CFR 7.3(b) gave L/BAR jurisdiction over certain passport denial, revocation, and restriction cases, subsequent changes to 22 CFR part 51 superseded that provision, most recently revisions effective February 1, 2008 to 22 CFR 51.70-51.74 (formerly 22 CFR 51.80
et seq.), 72
Federal Register
222 (November 19, 2007), p. 64939. With
respect to § 7.3(a), persons determined to have lost U.S. nationality typically seek reconsideration from the Bureau of Consular Affairs, which provides for a less cumbersome and more timely procedure. Moreover, the Consular Affairs Bureau will consider a request for such review without time limitation, while L/BAR sets a one-year time limit for appeals. Very few of those who appeal do so within one year. Consequently, the number of appeals to L/BAR in recent years has dramatically diminished.
Respecting 22 CFR 7.3(c), L/BAR no longer has jurisdiction over any appeals from final decisions of contracting officers, as its authority over such appeals has been terminated (see 41 U.S.C. 607 and the Department’s Acquisition Regulations, 48 CFR part 633). As for § 7.3(d), L/BAR’s jurisdiction over denials of assistance in cases involving failures to comply with Fair Labor Standards has long been outdated, because the sanctions implemented by those standards are no longer in force and the regulations implementing them in 22 CFR have been superseded. Finally, the Secretary has not conferred jurisdiction on L/BAR to hear appeals of any other Department administrative decisions, as provided for in 22 CFR 7.3(e).
Because its jurisdiction is obsolete or has been eliminated, and its theoretical functions exercised by other bodies or offices, there is no longer a need for L/BAR. Accordingly, this regulation eliminates the current regulations in part 7 of 22 CFR (reserving part 7) and with it L/BAR.
The Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b), does not require notice and public comment of “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.” This rule pertains to agency organization, management, and practice for expatriation review and is being published as an interim final rule. The Department remains interested, however, in receiving for consideration any views from the public with respect to the rule, and is therefore requesting public comment by the due date noted above.
Appeals From Determinations of Loss of Nationality
The elimination of L/BAR means there will no longer be a formal administrative appeal of loss-of-nationality determinations by the Department. Revisions to 22 CFR 50.51 delete references to an appeal to L/BAR.
Importantly, the Department expects to continue its current discretionary practice of reviewing prior findings of loss of nationality at the request of an affected individual who believes the finding should be reversed in light of subsequent legal developments (for example, an intervening Supreme Court decision) or when substantial new facts become available relevant to involuntariness or absence of intent at the time of the expatriating act. The revisions to 22 CFR 50.51 codify this discretionary practice, which is now partially codified in 22 CFR 7.2(b). In addition, the Bureau of Consular Affairs has modified its procedures for such reviews to provide that each case submitted for reconsideration will be examined by an officer who was not involved in the original determination using specified criteria.
Revisions to 22 CFR 50.51 also clarify that requesting reconsideration by the Department of a finding of loss of nationality is neither a mandatory procedure prior to resort to judicial processes nor a formal “procedure for administrative appeal” for purposes of section 358 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1501). Accordingly, the issuance of a Certificate of Loss of Nationality constitutes the “final administrative determination” and “final administrative denial” for purposes of INA §§ 358 and 360 (8 U.S.C. 1501 & 1503), respectively. This means that the five-year statute of limitations for bringing an action in federal court under INA § 360 (8 U.S.C. 1503) to overturn a determination of loss of nationality begins to run when the Certificate of Loss of Nationality is issued. The Department imposes no time limit for requesting its discretionary reconsideration by the Bureau of Consular Affairs of a finding of loss, and as such this review is not intended to serve as a formal “appeal procedure” that may affect the running of the statutory statute of limitations contained in 8 U.S.C. 1503.
The process of restoring U.S. citizenship today
The commentary in the Federal Register clarifies that the Board of Appellate Review was significantly diminished prior to its formal 2008 dissolution. The Bureau of Consular Affairs has replaced the Board. The regulation creating the process for restoring U.S. citizenship and vacating a Certificate of Loss of Nationality is now:
§ 50.51 Review of finding of loss of nationality.
(a) There are no prescribed “procedures for administrative appeal” of issuance of a Certificate of Loss of Nationality for purposes of § 358 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1501) and no mandatory administrative review procedure prior to resort to judicial processes under § 360 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1503). Nevertheless, the Department may in its discretion review determinations of loss of nationality at any time after approval of issuance of the Certificate of Loss of Nationality to ensure consistency with governing law (see INA §§ 349 and 356, 8 U.S.C. 1481 and 1488). Such reconsideration may be initiated at the request of the person concerned or another person determined in accordance with guidance issued by the Department to have a legitimate interest.
(b) The primary grounds on which the Department will consider reversing a finding of loss of nationality and vacating a Certificate of Loss of Nationality are:
(1) The law under which the finding of loss was made has been held unconstitutional; or
(2) A major change in the interpretation of the law of expatriation is made as a result of a U.S. Supreme Court decision; or
(3) A major change in the interpretation of the law of expatriation is made by the Department, or is made by a court or another agency and adopted by the Department; and/or
(4) The person presents substantial new evidence, not previously considered, of involuntariness or absence of intent at the time of the expatriating act.
(c) When the Department reverses a finding of loss of nationality, the person concerned shall be considered not to have lost U.S. nationality as of the time the expatriating act was committed, and the Certificate of Loss of Nationality shall be vacated.
(d) Requesting the Department to reverse a finding of loss of nationality and vacate a Certificate of Loss of Nationality is not a prescribed “procedure for administrative appeal” for purposes of § 358 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1501). The Department’s decision in response to such a request is not a prescribed “procedure for administrative appeal” for purposes of § 358 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1501). The issuance of a Certificate of Loss of Nationality by the Department is a “final administrative determination” and “final administrative denial” for purposes of §§ 358 and 360 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1501 and 1503), respectively.
[73 FR 41258, July 18, 2008]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/50.51
Yes, restoration of U.S. citizenship (although difficult) is possible.
Then and now: The Board Of Appellate Review (L/BAR) was a transparent process. The post 2008 process through the Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA/OCS/ACS) is opaque!
Gone are the days when applications to restore U.S. citizenship were processed by by identifiable individuals who issued written decisions. Everybody knew who Alan James was. People had a reasonable expectation that their application would result in a written decision. It appears that individuals and their counsel would actively participate in the hearing.
That is no longer the case. The procedural mechanism under 22 cfr 50.51 is opaque. The appeal is submitted to the State Department (for particulars see your “Certificate of Loss of Nationality”). After submission it is processed by the Government. There is no indication of who the individuals are who process the appeal. There appears to be no opportunity to participate in the appeal through a formal hearing with procedural rules. There appears to be no timeline for the process from beginning to end. These are important considerations when considering how to organize and frame an appeal to vacate a Certificate of Loss of Nationality and restore U.S. citizenship. Those considering an application to vacate a Certificate of Loss of Nationality should think very carefully about their evidence (it’s about voluntariness and intention at the time of the expatriating act) and how that evidence is to be presented (affidavits, etc.). An accompanying legal brief must be written. That legal brief will be considered in the context of neither a formal hearing nor an opportunity to respond. The days of Alan James, the Board of Appellate Review and transparency are long gone.
How to seek to have your U.S. citizenship restored (It’s not easy!)
1. Informal appeal under the 22 CFR 50.51 regulation
2. Court action under INA 360 (8 U.S.C. 1503)- Note that there is a clear statute of limitations that applies to this option! Consult your lawyer to learn more.
Appendix – Articles by Alan James
– “Expatriation In The United States”
Expatriation in the United States_ Precept and Practice Today and
Cult-Induced Renunciation of United States Citizenship_ The Invol
John Richardson – Follow me on X.com/Expatriationlaw