appeal process for denials of passports . . . a denial of a passport, and similar Department of State actions premised on lack of citizenship, would trigger an immediate ability to sue in federal court.”636 However, there is disagreement among courts of appeal as to whether the APA is an available remedy at all in passport cases because § 1503 provides an exclusive remedy. At least one court has recently held that § 1503(b) and (c) do not provide an “adequate remedy” and their availability should not preclude an action under the APA.637 This interpretation follows from the Supreme Court’s decision in Rusk v. Cort (1962): [T]he question posed is whether the procedures specified in § 360 [INA § 1503] (b) and (c) provide the only method of reviewing the Secretary of State’s determination that Cort has forfeited his citizenship. More precisely stated, the question in this case is whether, despite the liberal provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, Congress intended that a native of this country living abroad must travel thousands of miles, be arrested, and go to jail in order to attack an administrative finding that he is not a citizen of the United States. We find nothing in the statutory language, in the legislative history, or in our prior decision which leads us to believe that Congress had any such purpose. 638 In Hinojosa, as described above, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the Supreme Court’s decision in Rusk v. Cort did not apply in a case involving two women who claim they were born in the United States with the aid of midwives. The court found that the only available remedy for the plaintiffs was to follow the steps set out in § 1503(b) and (c) through to a habeas petition for judicial review of the passport denial.639 Other courts allow applications submitted from abroad relying on a cause of action under the APA.640 Unlike § 1503 claims, the APA does permit the court to examine the conduct of the agency, which an action for declaration of citizenship does not broach.641 The APA also provides recourse to challenge an agency’s failure to act, seeking to compel action that is unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.642 These actions can also be accompanied by a claim under the Declaratory Judgment Act seeking a determination of citizenship,643 or, as in the Castelano litigation in South Texas, a petition for writ of mandamus to compel the State Department to adjudicate passport applications that were deemed “filed without further action.”644 The burden of proof under the APA lies with the agency in order to justify the denial or revocation, another reason why the cause of action is attractive in passport cases.645 Overall, however, the APA cause of action provides limited and contingent relief in passport cases. Review of agency actions, such as a denial of a passport, under the APA is “exceedingly 144 UNMAKING AMERICANS