they are no longer nationals of Kazakhstan. See Norani, 451 F.3d 292 (finding that the BIA abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen for failing to account for the substantial record evidence). a. Revoking citizenship on pretextual grounds must be addressed The Petitioners argued that the revocation of their citizenship was based on protected grounds (their ethnicity and religion). The reasons given by the Kazak government in its revocation letter reference (i.e. when only that routine citizenship citizens fail to administrative is procedures automatically register with revoked the Kazak consulate within five years of residency abroad). The Petitioners provided substantial support for their contention that the revocation of their citizenship was pretextual and discriminatory. R. at 99-134. The Petitioners presented an affidavit from Maureen Statelessness Lynch, the Senior Initiatives 29 Advocate at for Refugees