certificate or passport—even if already administratively cancelled—would seem to satisfy that prima facie requirement. The government would then be put to its burden to establish by “clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence” the plaintiff’s lack of entitlement to the disputed “right or privilege” of citizenship.625 This burden-shifting approach applies in the Second, Third, Ninth, and D.C. circuits, and has also been adopted by district courts in the Eighth Circuit.626 It is based on a footnote in Perez v. Brownell cited in many of these decisions.627 The Second Circuit cites to Perez, for example, to support the rule that, “where citizenship is conceded, or . . . plaintiff shows a prior governmental determination establishing his citizenship, the government must show by ‘clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence’ . . . that the plaintiff expatriated himself or that the prior administrative determination was erroneous.”628 The Supreme Court has never directly ruled on the burden of proof in declaratory actions for citizenship. Although citizenship claims arising in the context of removal proceedings are not the primary focus of this report, it is important to note the substantial hurdles imposed in reaching a determination of citizenship as a defense to removal. Citizenship claims in federal court during the administrative removal process (whether based on birth or derivative citizenship) are statutorily barred under § 1503. Such claims must be raised instead through extremely narrow administrative and judicial review with significant deference to the decisions of immigration judges.629 In cases arising in this posture, the government bears the burden of proving alienage by “clear and convincing evidence.”630 Where the government provides evidence of foreign birth, this creates a presumption of alienage that can be overcome by a “preponderance of the evidence.” The Ninth Circuit applies a more lenient standard of proof for respondents, however, holding that the presumption of alienage may be overcome with “substantial credible evidence,” a lower bar.631 In 2018, the Ninth Circuit also ruled that this burden-shifting and standard of proof applies in all alienage cases, including declaratory judgment actions, as noted above.632 Administrative Procedure Act The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides a remedy to challenge administrative agency decisions that caused a “legal wrong” or where a person has been “adversely affected or aggrieved” by an agency action.633 The APA does not supply jurisdiction and claims must be brought under the federal question statute (28 U.S.C. § 1331) or the habeas statute (28 U.S.C. § 2241).634 The APA is a remedy of last resort: all administrative remedies must be exhausted before an APA action in federal court is available, and claimants must show that there is “no other adequate remedy in court.” 635 Because “the State Department has no formal administrative III. Denial and revocation of documentation of U.S. citizenship 143