Kenneth Fox v. Hillary Clinton, 401 U.S. App. D.C. 271

Appellant Kenneth Fox, a U.S. national by birth, acquired Israeli nationality in 2002 and seeks a Certificate of Loss of Nationality (CLN) under INA § 349(a)(1) or (a)(2).
Department denied relief: §1 claim based on its interpretation that Fox did not naturalize 'upon his own application' and that he obtained nationality by return, not by application; §2 claim denied for lack of a meaningful oath.
Fox filed suit challenging the Department’s final decision (Betancourt Letter, Mar. 8, 2010) under the APA in the D.C. District Court, which dismissed the action.
District Court upheld denial for both sections but remanded as to §1 issues? (context shows district court’s dismissal was upheld in part).
On appeal, the D.C. Circuit reverses as to §1 on a Chevron/Skidmore framework and remands for reconsideration; §2 denial affirmed.
Israel’s Law of Return and Nationality Law make nationality by return depend on an application process, complicating the §1 'upon his own application' requirement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Betancourt Letter merits Chevron deference.	Fox contends Betancourt Letter lacks deference.	Department argues Chevron applies to its interpretation of INA §1.	Betancourt Letter not entitled to Chevron deference.
Whether the §1 denial is arbitrary and capricious for lack of reasoned decisionmaking.	Fox argues the §1 reasoning is incoherent and unreasoned.	Department asserts its interpretation and application were reasonable.	Denial under §1 reversed for lack of reasoned decisionmaking; remand ordered.
Whether Fox satisfied §2's oath requirement.	Fox asserts existence of meaningful oaths; Israel law allowed non-written oath.	Department requires objective, independent evidence of a meaningful oath; record lacks it.	§2 claim denied; record fails to prove a qualifying oath.
Procedural posture and potential relief under §5 or other provisions.	Fox could pursue §5 or alternative avenues for CLN.	Focus is on §1 and §2; §5 not dispositive here.	Court leaves §5 alternative open but remands solely for §1 reconsideration; §2 affirmed.

Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (U.S. 1980) (expatriation and intent requirements for loss of nationality)
Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (U.S. 1967) (permanent loss of citizenship requires explicit expatriating act with intent)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (arbitrary and capricious standard under APA)
Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576 (U.S. 2000) (agency interpretations lacking the force of law receive limited deference)
Barnhart v. Walton, 535 U.S. 212 (U.S. 2002) (when agency interpretations have force of law, Chevron may apply)
Mead Corp. v. United States, 533 U.S. 218 (U.S. 2001) ( Chevron deference framework and alternatives explained)
Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 332 F.3d 654 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (Skidmore deference and persuasive power of agency interpretations)
Coburn v. McHugh, 679 F.3d 924 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (reasoned decisionmaking required in agency adjudications)
Siegel v. SEC, 592 F.3d 147 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (reasoned decisionmaking and coherence in agency actions)
Tripoli Rocketry Ass’n, Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 437 F.3d 75 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (requirement of logically rational agency reasoning)
Gillars v. United States, 182 F.2d 962 (D.C. Cir. 1950) (oath/renunciation context informing expatriation analysis)
Allentown Mack Sales & Serv., Inc. v. NLRB, 522 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1998) (importance of reasoned decisionmaking)