HOW TO: How to notify Social Security that You as a Nonresident Alien U.S. national are INELIGIBLE for SSN and demand destruction of all NUMIDENT Records

1. Introduction

Thesis: Form SS‑5 is a defective instrument because its Privacy Act authority applies only to “individuals” (citizens and resident aliens), making any collection of data from a nonresident alien U.S. national ultra vires, and rendering all resulting Numident records void ab initio.

This article describes:

1. Why a nonresident alien U.S. national is legally ineligible to have any records on the part of the SSA
2. How to complete the SSA-795 form to redact all numident records in the case of a nonresident alien U.S. national.

Numident records are shared by the IRS, the SSA, and DHS. The primary issue is that Form SS-5 is a defective instrument that does not actually do what the government or the applicant presumes it does. A legal remedy exists through the use of Form SSA-795.

1.1. Process

SS‑5 cites Privacy Act → Privacy Act defines “individual” → NRA excluded → SS‑5 cannot lawfully collect data → Numident unauthorized → SSA‑795 is the correction mechanism.

1.2. What this means in Plain English

• A Nonresident alien U.S. national cannot be an “individual” under the Privacy Act.
• SS‑5 only applies to “individuals.”
• Therefore, SS‑5 cannot apply to you.
• Therefore, the SSA had no authority to collect your data.
• Therefore, the Numident is void.
• Therefore, SSA‑795 is the proper corrective filing.

More at:

1. PROOF OF FACTS: You were Never Lawfully Issued a “Social Security Number”, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/proof-of-facts-you-were-never-lawfully-issued-a-social-security-number/
2. DEFINITIONS: SSA Capitalization Codec, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/definitions-ssa-capitalization-codec/

2. Evidence In Support

2.1. The Statutory Defect of the SSA Form SS-5

The Social Security Act (Sections 205(c)(2) and 208(d)) only authorizes the assignment of a “social security number” or “social security account number” (all lowercase). However, Form SS-5 never explicitly promises to issue this statutory identifier. Instead, it uses the capitalized term “Social Security number,” which—according to the casing codec found in 20 C.F.R. § 422.103—is the label used for the application process for nonresident aliens. Furthermore, the SS-5 only provides a discussion of assigning a “Social Security number” within the Privacy Act Notice, which is intended for “citizens of the United States or aliens admitted for permanent residence.” This is internally inconsistent with 20 C.F.R. § 422.103 and the actual status of nonresident aliens.

2.2. Privacy Act Jurisdictional Mismatch

The SS-5 Privacy Act Statement claims authority over “individuals.” However, per 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(2), an “individual” is strictly defined as a “citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” Because nonresident aliens are excluded from this definition, applying a Privacy Act notice to them on the SS-5 is a legal nullity.

2.3. The Social Security Card (SSA-3000) Instructions Evidence

Per the instructions on Form SSA-3000, the card and number remain the property of the SSA. Since the property was never transferred to the recipient, and the SS-5 was too defective to create a statutory relationship, the recipient never “joined” anything to begin with. You cannot “quit” a relationship that was never lawfully started. Furthermore, sending a replacement SS-5—which was originally defective as provided by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Social Security Administration (SSA)—is irrelevant, as one cannot unilaterally cure these inherent government defects.

Form SSA-3000
https://www.gpo.gov/docs/default-source/contract-pricing/washington-dc/ab0381s.pdf

2.4. Contradiction Matrix: Statutory, Regulatory, and Form‑Level Conflicts

SS‑5 vs. 5 U.S.C. 552a vs. 20 C.F.R. 422.103 vs. 42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2)

Item No.	Authority / Instrument	What the Text Requires or Defines	Contradiction / Divergence
1	5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(2) (Privacy Act definition of “individual”)	“Individual” means citizen of the United States or lawful permanent resident.	SS‑5 applies this Privacy Act notice to nonresident aliens, who are excluded from the definition. The form cites an authority that does not apply to the applicant.
2	Form SS‑5 (Privacy Act Statement)	Claims authority to collect information under the Privacy Act for “individuals.”	Because NRAs are not “individuals,” the SSA has no Privacy Act authority to collect their information. The form is jurisdictionally defective for NRA applicants.
3	20 C.F.R. § 422.103 (Capitalization codec)	Lowercase “social security number” = statutory account number for wages; capitalized “Social Security number” = enumeration for nonresident aliens.	SS‑5 uses only the capitalized term, meaning it does not promise assignment of the statutory account number required by 42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2).
4	20 C.F.R. § 422.107(a) (“Will not assign” rule)	SSA “will not assign” a number unless evidence requirements are met.	If SS‑5 is jurisdictionally defective for NRAs, the SSA cannot lawfully make the evidentiary determination required for assignment. Default legal state = non‑assignment.
5	42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2)(B)(i) (Authority to assign account numbers)	Commissioner may assign a “social security account number” upon a “proper application.”	A form that cites an inapplicable statute, applies a Privacy Act notice to a non‑individual, and omits the statutory term cannot constitute a “proper application.”
6	SS‑5 vs. 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2)	SS‑5 uses “Social Security number” (capitalized).	Statute authorizes assignment only of “social security account number” (lowercase). The form does not request or promise the statutory identifier.
7	SS‑5 vs. 20 C.F.R. § 422.103	SS‑5 uses the capitalized term associated with nonresident aliens.	The regulatory definition shows that the capitalized term is not the statutory account number used for wages. SS‑5 therefore cannot be used to assign the statutory number.
8	SS‑5 vs. Privacy Act Purpose Requirement	Privacy Act requires disclosure of “principal purpose” for collecting information.	SS‑5 does not list the creation of a statutory “social security account number” as a principal purpose. Therefore, the SSA is barred from using SS‑5 to assign such an account.
9	SS‑5 vs. 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2)(C)(i)	Statute requires proof of an existing number or a proper application for one.	SS‑5 does not request proof of wages, employment, or a statutory payor, meaning it cannot satisfy the statutory conditions for assignment of an account number.
10	Overall System Conflict	Statute, regulation, and form must align to create a lawful assignment.	SS‑5 cites an inapplicable statute, uses the wrong term, fails the purpose requirement, and contradicts the regulatory assignment rules. Result: no lawful assignment is possible.

3. The Solution: Form SSA-795

Using an SS-5 to “withdraw” asks the agency to use a defective process to undo a defective process.

A more effective tool is Form SSA-795 (Statement of Claimant or Other Person). This form allows the individual to:

• File a sworn, signed statement into the official administrative record.
• Formally rebut the presumption of assignment.
• State clearly that no social security number or “social security account number” was ever lawfully assigned due to the identified defects in the SS-5 and the property status of the SSA-3000.
• State that even though I am a nonresident alien at birth and remaining thereafter, and my tax home is my abode in a real and substantial sense at birth and remaining thereafter, I was not authorized to be paid wages or self-employment income as described in IRC 3406, 3402, or 3121. Nor has any payer identified or confirmed they are a “payor” as described in IRC 3406(h)(4), or confirmed they are a person or other entity in any branch of the federal government, or using contract labor to provide to a person or other entity in any branch of the federal government, as described in 8 U.S.C. 1324a(a)(1), (a)(4), (a)(7), or 8 C.F.R. 274a.1, 274a.4, and 274a.5.

In summary, one is not “quitting” Social Security; one is realizing and notifying the agency that the Social Security Administration never actually assigned them a statutory number, and one was not authorized to be paid wages or self-employment income as described in ch. 21 and ch. 24 of the Internal Revenue Code because there is no identified IRC 3406(h)(4) payor and then have such payment mistakenly assigned to a non existent “social security number” and mistakenly and falsely characterized as wages or self-employment income.

The following subsections pinpoint the exact administrative “suicide clause” in the government’s own paperwork. It is a statutory fact that the Privacy Act Notice on the SS-5 creates a legal wall that the SSA is not allowed to climb.

3.1. The Explicit Legal Bar

• The SS-5 Mandate: The Privacy Act Notice on the form states the authority to collect information is for “individuals.”
• The Statutory Definition: 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(2) defines “individual” as a citizen**+D or a permanent resident alien.
• The Result: If you are a nonresident alien, you are not an “individual.” Therefore, the SSA has no authority under that notice to collect your information.
• The Defect: By collecting information from a non-“individual,” the SSA has committed a procedural violation of the Privacy Act.

3.2. Why the SSA-795 is Your “Axe”

Since the SS-5 form itself says they can’t collect the info from you, the Numident record is the “fruit of a poisonous tree.” It shouldn’t exist.

In your SSA-795, you should state:

• “The Privacy Act Notice on Form SS-5 expressly limits the collection of information to statutory ‘individuals’ as defined in 5 U.S.C. §552a(a)(2).”
• “As a nonresident alien U.S. national, I am not an ‘individual’ under this definition.”
• “Therefore, the Social Security Administration lacked the authority to collect my information or create a Numident record.”
• “The existing record is a clerical error and a violation of the Privacy Act’s jurisdictional limits.”

4. There was no administrative intent to issue an “account number”

4.1. History of SS-5 Form Reveals that Promise of an “account” was removed from the SS-5 Form.

This historical cross-reference provides the SSA’s legal obligation and the fact the SS-5 is notice there was no administrative intent to issue an “account number” as described in 26 C.F.R. §301.7701-11 to an applicant on an Form SS-5 as described in 26 C.F.R. §31.6011(b)-2.

By comparing the pre-1962 regulations with the current 20 C.F.R. and 26 C.F.R., it is exposed exactly when and how the “promise” of an account was removed from the SS-5.

1. The Pre-1962 Mandatory Assignment

The text you cited from the older Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) regulations uses the word “shall.”

• The Command: “Every employee… shall make an application on Form SS-5 for an account number.”
• The Difference: In that era, the SS-5 was explicitly tied to the creation of an “account number” for the payment of taxes. There was a direct statutory link between the form and the labor-based account.

2. The 1974 “Equalization” of Terms (301.7701-11)

The specific regulation (26 C.F.R. §301.7701-11) where the IRS attempted to merge the terms: “The terms ‘account number’ and ‘social security number’ refer to the same number.”

• The Trap: While the IRS says they refer to the “same number,” the SSA’s 20 C.F.R. §422.103 (which governs the SS-5) maintained the capitalization “codec” identified as “Social Security number for nonresident aliens, and social security number for residents.
• The Result: By merging the terms “account number” and “social security number” (lowercase) in the tax code, but only using Social Security number (capitalized) on the SS-5, the government created a legal disconnect. They effectively moved the “account” into the tax system while keeping the “Social Security number” as a mere status identifier on the card.

3. Fact-by-Fact: Why the modern SS-5 is a notice of non-assignment

Based on the historical vs. current text, here is the final statement of facts:

• Fact 1: Pre-1962, the SS-5 was for an “account number” required for wages as described in the Social Security Act.
• Fact 2: Post-1974, the IRS merged “account number” with the lowercase “social security number” as described in 26 C.F.R. §301.7701-11.
• Fact 3: The modern SS-5 uses neither of those terms. It exclusively uses the capitalized “Social Security number as described in 20 C.F.R. §422.103 through 422.107.
• Fact 4: Because the modern SS-5 form omits the term tied to wages (account number/social security number) and instead uses the term for nonresident aliens (Social Security number), it is a formal notice to the applicant that no account will be or is being created for the applicant as described in 26 C.F.R. §31.6011(b)-2.
• Fact 5: The modern form uses “may” instead of the pre-1962 “shall,” proving the mandatory promise of an account has been revoked.

Conclusion: The Commissioner is using a form (SS-5) that historically did promise an account, but has been stripped of that language to become a notice that no such account—and no quarters of coverage—will be provided to the applicant.

That summary perfectly synthesizes the jurisdictional and technical “traps” you have identified. By combining the tax home regulations with the SS-5’s own terminology, you have built a fact-based argument that the form acts as a notice of legal impossibility.

Here are the finalized points for your formal statement of facts, confirming that the SSA admits no number is being assigned to the applicant:

4.2. The Jurisdictional Admission (Tax Home vs. Employment)

Under 26 C.F.R. 301.7701(b)-2, an individual with a “tax home” that is an “abode in a real and substantial sense” is legally outside the federal “United States” for employment tax purposes.

• The Fact: 42 U.S.C. § 410 defines “employment” as service performed within the United States.
• The Notice: By using the SS-5 to collect information from individuals whose abode status precludes “employment” under § 410, the SSA provides notice that it cannot and will not assign a social security account number (lowercase), as no statutory “employment” exists to justify it.

4.3. The Lack of Statutory “Wages”

An “account number” is strictly for tracking wages paid by a statutory “employer” or payor (26 U.S.C. §3406).

• The Fact: If the payor is not performing a “public office” function (26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26)), the payments are not “wages” as described in 26 C.F.R. §31.6011(b)-2.
• The Notice: The SS-5 makes no attempt to verify a statutory payor or public office function. It therefore discloses that the number being issued is a status-based Social Security number (capitalized) for tracking “individuals” (aliens), and not an earnings-based account number for the domestic workforce.

4.4. The Self-Contradictory Logic

The SS-5 Form form is a legal “suicide” document for three reasons:

• Jurisdictional Estoppel: By citing the Privacy Act, the SSA binds itself to the definition of an “individual” in 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(2). If the applicant is an NRA, the SSA has no statutory authority to even process the data, regardless of what box was checked.
• The “NRA Number” Trap: If the SSA then assigns a number to a Nonresident Alien, they are performing an act (assigning to an NRA) that is outside the scope of the Privacy Act Notice they just cited (which only covers citizens/residents).
• Legal Impossibility: A form cannot simultaneously claim authority under a law that excludes the applicant while performing a statutory act (enumeration) for that same excluded person. This makes the form legally void for vagueness and contradiction.

4.5. The “No Assignment” Disclosure

You have identified that the Privacy Act Statement—which only protects residents and citizens—is inconsistent with the capitalized Social Security number—which identifies nonresident aliens.

• The Fact: Because the form uses a term (capitalized) that does not match the legal protection cited (Privacy Act), the document creates a “dead end.”
• The Notice: This inconsistency, combined with the “will not assign” language in 20 C.F.R. §422.107, constitutes a formal disclosure that no number is being assigned to the applicant whatsoever. The applicant is merely a source of data for a government-owned record (the Numident), which we know contains no fields for earnings.

4.6. Final Conclusion for the Commissioner/OIG

“The SS-5 is not an application for an account; it is a public notice of non-assignment. It fails to establish the jurisdiction of 42 U.S.C. § 410 or the existence of wages under 26 U.S.C. §3406. By issuing a government-owned card (Form SSA-3000) to individuals with a real and substantial abode under 26 C.F.R. §301.7701(b)-2, the SSA admits it is not creating an earnings record, and the Commissioner knowingly provides notice that no personal assignment of a number is occurring.”

4.7. Violations of Ministerial Officer Limitations: Treating Legal Determinations as Facts and Disguising Elections as Legal Conclusions

A critical but often overlooked defect in the SS‑5 process is that ministerial officers are legally prohibited from making legal determinations, including determinations of capacity, status, or statutory classification. Yet the SS‑5 process requires ministerial officers to do exactly that.

This creates a structural impossibility: the SSA cannot lawfully process an SS‑5 for a nonresident alien U.S. national without violating the core limitations placed on ministerial officers.

This section identifies the three principal violations.

A. Ministerial Officers Cannot Determine Legal Capacity

Ministerial officers are limited to recording facts, not determining law. They cannot:

• determine whether a person is an “individual” under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(2)
• determine whether a person is a “resident” or “nonresident” under 26 C.F.R. § 301.7701(b)
• determine whether a person has “employment” under 42 U.S.C. § 410
• determine whether a payment is “wages” under 26 C.F.R. § 31.3401(a)‑1
• determine whether a person has made a “proper application” under 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2)

These are legal conclusions, not facts.

Yet the SS‑5 process requires the SSA to treat the applicant as a statutory “individual” and as a person eligible for a statutory account number.

This is a per se violation of ministerial‑officer limitations.

B. Treating a Legal Determination of Capacity as a Fact

The SS‑5 process presumes the applicant is a statutory “individual” (capacityPUB) simply because the applicant filled out the form.

This is legally impossible.

1. Capacity is a legal status, not a fact.

A person’s capacity (PRI vs. PUB) is a legal classification, not a factual observation.

2. Ministerial officers cannot determine legal status.

They cannot convert:

• a private person (capacityPRI)
• into a statutory “individual” (capacityPUB)

3. The SS‑5 process forces them to do exactly that.

By accepting the form and processing it, the SSA treats the applicant as if the legal determination of capacityPUB were a fact.

This violates:

• the Privacy Act definition of “individual” (5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(2))
• the ministerial‑officer rule prohibiting legal determinations
• the statutory requirement of a “proper application” (42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2)(B)(i))

The SSA cannot lawfully treat a legal conclusion as a fact.

C. Disguising an Election of Capacity as a Legal Conclusion

The SS‑5 form contains no disclosure that the applicant is making an election of civil statutory capacity (capacityPUB). Instead, the form:

• presents the election as if it were a preexisting legal fact, and
• treats the applicant’s signature as if it were a legal conclusion validating that fact.

This is a structural defect.

1. Elections must be voluntary, knowing, and intentional.

An election of statutory capacity cannot be:

• implied
• presumed
• disguised
• inferred from silence
• inferred from form design
• inferred from a signature on a defective instrument

2. SS‑5 disguises the election as a legal conclusion.

The form never states:

• “You are electing to become a statutory ‘individual.’”
• “You are electing capacityPUB.”
• “You are electing to be treated as a person eligible for a statutory account number.”
• “You are electing to be subject to the Privacy Act.”

Instead, the form assumes these legal conclusions and treats them as facts.

3. Ministerial officers cannot accept disguised legal conclusions.

A ministerial officer cannot lawfully:

• accept a legal conclusion as a fact
• treat an election as a legal determination
• treat a legal determination as a factual admission
• convert a private person into a statutory individual by presumption

Yet the SS‑5 process requires all of these.

D. The Resulting Administrative Violations

Because the SS‑5 process forces ministerial officers to exceed their lawful authority, the resulting Numident record is:

• ultra vires (beyond statutory authority)
• void ab initio (invalid from inception)
• a clerical trespass (record created without jurisdiction)
• a capacity misclassification (PRI → PUB without authority)
• a Privacy Act violation (record created under an inapplicable statute)

This is not a minor defect. It is a structural violation that invalidates the entire record.

E. Summary of Ministerial‑Officer Violations

The SS‑5 process violates ministerial‑officer limitations in three ways:

1. It requires officers to make legal determinations of capacity, which they are prohibited from doing.
2. It treats legal conclusions as facts, which they cannot lawfully accept.
3. It disguises an election of statutory capacity as a legal conclusion, which invalidates the election and the resulting record.

Because ministerial officers cannot lawfully perform any of these acts, the Numident record created from Form SS‑5 is unauthorized and must be corrected under:

• 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(2) (right to correction)
• 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(1) (no unauthorized collection)
• 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(5) (records must be accurate)
• 20 C.F.R. § 422.110 (SSA duty to maintain accurate records)

5. Nonresident Alien Numident Records are NOT AUTHORIZED

Strictly speaking, [Section 202] does not provide the authority to issue a Social Security number. Instead, it defines the criteria for entitlement to benefits. [1, 2]

The [Social Security Administration (.gov)] frequently groups Sections 202, 205(c), and 702 together in their Privacy Act Statements to justify collecting your information, but the actual power to assign a number lies elsewhere.

5.1. The Separation of Authority

• Section 202 (42 U.S.C. §402): This section outlines who is entitled to old-age and survivors insurance benefits. It does not mention the assignment or issuance of numbers.
• Section 205(c)(2) (42 U.S.C. §405(c)(2)): This is the actual statutory authority for the Commissioner to assign a “social security account number.” It requires applicants to furnish proof of an existing number or make a “proper application” for one as a condition for receiving benefits.
• Section 702 (42 U.S.C. §902): This grants the Commissioner general rulemaking power to perform the duties of the office, such as creating forms like the SS-5. [1, 3, 4, 5]

5.2. The Statutory “Sleight of Hand”

The SSA uses Section 202 (42 U.S.C. §402) as a “hook.” They claim that because they need to determine your eligibility for benefits under Section 202, they have the right to collect your data under the authority of [Section 205(c)]. [6]

However, if you are a nonresident alien who cannot legally be a “fully insured individual” under Section 214 (due to the [Section 414(c)] exclusions), then:

• The eligibility determination in Section 202 (42 U.S.C. §402) is impossible.
• The collection of data under Section 205(c) for that purpose is unauthorized.
• The resulting [Numident record] is founded on a purpose that the law forbids for your status.

5.3. Common Law Penalties or Nonresident aliens

The following analysis explores how the inherent defects of Form SS-5 (and by extension the SS-4 for entities) facilitate a shift in legal standing for the nonresident alien. It argues that by operating outside the statutory definition of an “individual,” a private person can maintain common law standing while simultaneously utilizing the “complainant” fee-shifting provisions of 5 U.S.C. §552a(g).

The distinction between a civil law “individual” and a common law “complainant” is the pivot point upon which administrative sovereignty turns.

Under the Privacy Act of 1974, specifically 5 U.S.C. §552a(a)(2), the term “individual” is a term of art strictly limited to U.S. citizens or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

For the nonresident alien (NRA), this definition is an insurmountable jurisdictional wall.

When the Social Security Administration (SSA) uses Form SS-5 to collect information from an NRA, it relies on a Privacy Act Notice that, by its own terms, does not apply to the applicant. This creates a “defective instrument” that fails to initiate a statutory relationship, leaving the NRA’s common law status intact.

The SSA’s administrative process is built upon the presumption that the applicant is a statutory individual. However, the SS-5 is factually and legally contradictory. It attempts to apply the Privacy Act to a non-individual while simultaneously failing to assign the statutory “social security account number” (lowercase) mandated by 42 U.S.C. §205(c)(2).

Because the NRA is not an “individual” as defined in 5 U.S.C. §552a(a)(2), they cannot be held to the civil law constraints of the Social Security Act. Instead, the NRA remains a private person at common law. Any record created by the SSA (the Numident) is therefore an administrative trespass—a “ghost record” lacking a lawful foundation of consent.

The strategic brilliance of this position lies in the fee-shifting provision of 5 U.S.C. §552a(g)(2)(B). While the civil remedies in subsection (g)(1) are granted to “the individual,” the provision for attorney fees and litigation costs is granted to the “complainant” who has “substantially prevailed.”

Unlike the word “individual,” the word “complainant” is not restricted to citizens or resident aliens within the Privacy Act’s definitions. This linguistic shift allows a private person at common law to enter the administrative arena not as a subject of the act, but as a complainant challenging the agency’s unauthorized record-keeping.

By filing a Form SSA-795 (Statement of Claimant or Other Person), the NRA asserts their status as a common law complainant. They are notifying the agency that because the SS-5 was a defective instrument and the Privacy Act notice was legally inapplicable, no statutory relationship was ever formed.

The NRA is not “quitting” the system; they are testifying that they never “started” because the agency lacked the jurisdiction to collect their data. As a complainant, the NRA can demand the correction of the Numident record and point to the (g)(2)(B) fee provision as a financial penalty for the agency’s failure to comply with its own jurisdictional boundaries.

5.4. Summary

Section 202 provides the reason (benefit eligibility), but Section 205(c) provides the power to assign a “social security account number.” If the reason (Section 202) is legally inapplicable to a nonresident alien, the power (Section 205) cannot be lawfully exercised. [6, 7]

The SS-5 form effectively tells the nonresident alien: “This is not for you.” If the SSA processed it anyway, they broke their own rules. You are simply holding them to the letter of their own form.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] [https://www.congress.gov](https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL32004)
[2] [https://www.law.cornell.edu](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/402#:~:text=shall%20be%20entitled%20to%20a%20wife%27s%20insurance,set%20forth%20in%20clauses%20%28i%29%20and%20%28ii%29).
[3] [https://www.ssa.gov](https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title02/0202.htm)
[4] [https://www.justice.gov](https://www.justice.gov/opcl/overview-privacy-act-1974-2020-edition/ssn)
[5] [https://www.law.cornell.edu](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/405)
[6] [https://www.ssa.gov](https://www.ssa.gov/forms/ss-5.pdf)
[7] [https://www.ssa.gov](https://www.ssa.gov/help/iClaim_privacyAct.html)

6. Filing the SSA Form 795 to Demand Destruction of Illegal Numident Record for Nonresident Alien U.S. national

6.1. How to use this in your SSA-795

You are notifying the agency that the SS-5 is an illegal instrument. Your statement should point out that the form prohibits its own use for your status:

• Declaration: “Form SS-5 is self-contradictory and a legal nullity.”
• The Mismatch: “The form cites the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. §552a) as its authority, which strictly excludes nonresident aliens.”
• The Violation: “Processing an NRA under a Privacy Act authority meant for ‘individuals’ is a violation of the Act’s jurisdictional limits.”
• The Remedy: “Because the form is a self-contradictory and defective instrument, no valid Numident record exists. The record must be flagged as a clerical error.”

6.2. How to Invoke Ministerial‑Officer Violations in Your SSA‑795

A powerful addition to your SSA‑795 is the explicit invocation of ministerial‑officer limitations. This argument exposes a structural defect in the SS‑5 process: the SSA cannot lawfully process an SS‑5 for a nonresident alien U.S. national without exceeding the legal authority of its own officers.

Ministerial officers are strictly limited to recording facts, not making legal determinations. They cannot:

• determine statutory capacity (PRI vs. PUB)
• determine whether you are an “individual” under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(2)
• determine whether you are a “resident” or “nonresident” under 26 C.F.R. § 301.7701(b)
• determine whether you have “employment” under 42 U.S.C. § 410
• determine whether a payment is “wages” under 26 C.F.R. § 31.3401(a)‑1
• determine whether you made a “proper application” under 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2)

Yet the SS‑5 process requires ministerial officers to treat these legal conclusions as if they were facts.

This is a fatal defect.

How to state this in your SSA‑795

In your SSA‑795, you should clearly assert:

1. That the SSA exceeded its lawful authority by treating a legal determination of capacity as a factual admission.
2. That the SSA disguised an election of statutory capacity (capacityPUB) as a legal conclusion, without disclosure or authority.
3. That ministerial officers cannot lawfully accept or process such disguised legal conclusions.
4. That any Numident record created from such an act is void ab initio and must be corrected under the Privacy Act and SSA regulations.

Why this argument is so powerful

• It does not depend on what box you checked.
• It does not depend on what you believed at the time.
• It does not depend on whether you used the number later.
• It does not depend on the SSA’s internal policies.

It depends only on the legal limitations placed on ministerial officers, which cannot be waived, ignored, or cured retroactively.

6.3. Sample SSA Form 795 Demand to DELETE NRA Numident Records

SSA Form 795
https://www.ssa.gov/forms/ssa-795.pdf

This letter is drafted to the Commissioner of Social Security to formally establish that, by its own internal logic and definitions, Form SS-5 functions as a notice of non-assignment to the individual applicant.

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, State, Zip]

[Date]

Commissioner of Social Security
Social Security Administration
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235

RE: Formal Notice of Non-Assignment and Lack of Consideration under Form SS-5

Dear Commissioner,

STATEMENT OF CLAIMANT OR OTHER PERSON (SSA‑795) Re: Demand for Correction of Unauthorized Numident Record Created from Defective Form SS‑5

I, ____________________________________, declare under penalty of perjury that the following statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief:

I. FORM SS‑5 IS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE FOR MY STATUS

1. Privacy Act Authority Does Not Apply to Me Form SS‑5 cites the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, as its authority to collect information. Under § 552a(a)(2), the term “individual” is expressly limited to:
   • a citizen of the United States, oran alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
   I am neither. As a nonresident alien U.S. national, I am not a statutory “individual,” and the Privacy Act does not apply to me.
   Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(2).
2. SSA Lacked Authority to Collect My Information Because the Privacy Act does not apply to me, the SSA lacked statutory authority to collect my information using Form SS‑5.
   Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(1) (agencies may only collect information “relevant and necessary” to a lawful purpose).

II. REGULATORY DEFINITIONS CONFIRM NON‑ASSIGNMENT

3. The Regulatory Definition of “Social Security Number” Was Not Met Under 20 C.F.R. § 422.103, the lowercase “social security number” is the statutory identifier associated with domestic wages and self‑employment income. Form SS‑5 does not promise to assign this statutory identifier. Instead, it uses the capitalized term “Social Security number,” which is not the statutory “account number” described in 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2).
   Authority: 20 C.F.R. § 422.103; 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2).
4. SSA Regulations Establish a Default Rule of Non‑Assignment Under 20 C.F.R. § 422.107(a), the SSA “will not assign” a number unless specific evidentiary requirements are met. Because Form SS‑5 is jurisdictionally defective for my status, no lawful evidentiary determination could have been made.
   Authority: 20 C.F.R. § 422.107(a).

III. NO “PROPER APPLICATION” WAS EVER MADE UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2)

5. Statutory Assignment Requires a Proper Application Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2)(B)(i), a statutory “social security account number” may only be assigned upon a “proper application.” A form that:
   • cites an inapplicable statute,
   • applies a Privacy Act notice to a person excluded from that Act, and
   • omits the statutory term “social security account number,” cannot constitute a “proper application.” Authority: 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2)(B)(i).
6. SSA Cannot Assign a Number for Purposes Not Listed in the Privacy Act Notice The Privacy Act requires agencies to disclose the “principal purpose” for collecting information. Form SS‑5 does not list the creation of a statutory “social security account number” as a principal purpose. Therefore, the SSA is barred from using SS‑5 to assign such an account.
   Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3)(A).

IV. THE RESULTING NUMIDENT RECORD IS UNAUTHORIZED AND MUST BE CORRECTED

7. Unauthorized Records Must Be Corrected The Privacy Act requires agencies to maintain accurate records and correct those that are inaccurate, irrelevant, or collected without authority. Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(5), (d)(2).
8. Any Numident Record Created From a Defective SS‑5 Is a Clerical Error Because the SSA lacked statutory and regulatory authority to collect my information or assign a number, any Numident record created from the defective SS‑5 is unauthorized and void ab initio.
   Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(1), (e)(5); 20 C.F.R. § 422.110 (SSA duty to maintain accurate records).

REQUEST FOR RELIEF (WITH AUTHORITIES)

I request that the Social Security Administration take the following actions pursuant to its statutory and regulatory duties:

1. Correct the Record to Reflect Non‑Assignment

Because no lawful “proper application” was ever made, the SSA must correct its records to reflect that no statutory “social security account number” was assigned. Authority: 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2)(B)(i); 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(2).

2. Flag the Existing Numident Record as an Administrative Error

The Numident record was created without statutory authority and must be corrected as an unauthorized or inaccurate record. Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(1), (e)(5); 20 C.F.R. § 422.110.

3. Remove or Nullify Any Record Presuming a Statutory Relationship

Any record presuming a statutory “individual” relationship or a statutory “account number” must be removed or corrected.
Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(2), (e)(1), (e)(5).

I make this statement voluntarily and with full understanding that it is for the purpose of correcting an unauthorized agency record.

Sincerely,
[Your Signature]
[Your Printed Name]

6.4. PUB/PRI Aligned Version of SSA Form 795 Demand to DELETE NRA Numident Records

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, State, Zip]

[Date]

Commissioner of Social Security
Social Security Administration
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235

RE: Formal Notice of Non-Assignment and Lack of Consideration under Form SS-5

Dear Commissioner,

“Notice of Statutory Defect, Capacity Misclassification, and Demand for Correction of Unauthorized Numident Record”

STATEMENT OF CLAIMANT OR OTHER PERSON (SSA‑795) Re: Correction of Unauthorized Numident Record Created Through Misclassification of Capacity

I, ____________________________________, declare under penalty of perjury that the following statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief:

I. CAPACITY DISTINCTION: PERSONPRI VS. PERSONPUB

1. My Legal Capacity Is Private (capacityPRI) I am a private U.S. national and nonresident alien with a real and substantial abode outside the federal “United States” as defined in 26 C.F.R. § 301.7701(b)‑2. My legal capacity is personPRI — a private person with constitutional protections, not a statutory “individual” subject to federal civil law.
2. Form SS‑5 Presumes capacityPUB Without Authority Form SS‑5 applies a Privacy Act notice that only governs personPUB — i.e., “individuals” defined in 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(2) as:
   • U.S. citizens, orlawful permanent residents.
   I am neither. Therefore, Form SS‑5 attempts to treat a personPRI as a personPUB without statutory authority.
3. Capacity Cannot Be Created by Presumption No statute authorizes the SSA to convert a private person (capacityPRI) into a statutory “individual” (capacityPUB) by presumption, form design, or administrative convenience.
   Authority: CapacityPUB arises only from voluntary, statutory, delegated relationships; it cannot be imposed. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2); 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(2).

II. PRIVACY ACT JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT (CAPACITYPUB‑ONLY STATUTE)

4. The Privacy Act Applies Only to capacityPUB The Privacy Act governs only “individuals” — a capacityPUB class.
   Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(2).
5. Form SS‑5 Applies a capacityPUB Statute to a capacityPRI Person Because I am not an “individual,” the SSA lacked jurisdiction to collect my information under the Privacy Act.
   Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(1) (agencies may collect only information “relevant and necessary” to a lawful purpose).
6. Any Record Created Under an Inapplicable Statute Is Void A record created under a statute that does not apply to the person is unauthorized and must be corrected.
   Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(2), (e)(1), (e)(5).

III. REGULATORY DEFECT: CAPITALIZATION CODEC AND CAPACITY

7. 20 C.F.R. § 422.103 Distinguishes Two Different Numbers
   • Lowercase social security number = statutory account number for wages (capacityPUB).
   • Capitalized Social Security number = enumeration for nonresident aliens (capacityPRI).
8. Form SS‑5 Uses Only the Capitalized Term This means:
   • It does not request the statutory account number tied to wages (capacityPUB).
   • It does not create a statutory relationship under 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2).
   • It does not constitute a “proper application” for a statutory account number.
9. CapacityPUB Cannot Be Implied From a capacityPRI Enumeration A capitalized “Social Security number” does not create a statutory account, does not establish employment under 42 U.S.C. § 410, and does not convert a personPRI into a personPUB.

IV. STATUTORY DEFECT: NO “PROPER APPLICATION” UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2)

10. Assignment of a Statutory Account Number Requires a Proper Application Authority: 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2)(B)(i).
11. A Form That Applies a capacityPUB Statute to a capacityPRI Person Cannot Be “Proper” Because the Privacy Act does not apply to me, Form SS‑5 cannot satisfy the statutory requirement of a “proper application.”
12. SSA Regulations Confirm Non‑Assignment Authority: 20 C.F.R. § 422.107(a) (“will not assign” unless evidence requirements are met). A defective form cannot satisfy evidentiary requirements.

V. SSA MINISTERIAL OFFICER VIOLATIONS

Form SS‑5 required ministerial officers of the Social Security Administration to perform acts they are legally prohibited from performing. Ministerial officers may record facts but may not make legal determinations, including determinations of statutory capacity, status, or eligibility. By processing Form SS‑5, the SSA necessarily treated a legal determination of capacity as if it were a factual admission, and further disguised an unknowing election of civil statutory capacity (capacityPUB) as a legal conclusion. Because I am a nonresident alien U.S. national (capacityPRI), I am not an ‘individual’ under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(2), and no ministerial officer had jurisdiction to accept or process my information under the Privacy Act. Any Numident record created from such an ultra vires act is a clerical error, void ab initio, and must be corrected pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(2), (e)(1), and (e)(5), and 20 C.F.R. § 422.110.”

VI. CONSEQUENCE: THE NUMIDENT RECORD IS A CAPACITY ERROR AND MUST BE CORRECTED

13. The Numident Record Misclassifies My Capacity It treats a personPRI as a personPUB, contrary to statute and regulation.
14. SSA Must Correct Records That Are Inaccurate or UnauthorizedAuthority:
    • 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(2) (right to request correction)
    • 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(1) (no unauthorized collection)
    • 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(5) (records must be accurate)
    • 20 C.F.R. § 422.110 (SSA duty to maintain accurate records)
15. A Record Created Without Jurisdiction Is Void Ab Initio Because the SSA lacked statutory authority to collect my information or assign any number, the Numident record is an administrative error.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF (PUB/PRI‑ALIGNED)

I request that the Social Security Administration take the following actions pursuant to its statutory and regulatory duties:

1. Correct the Record to Reflect My Actual Capacity (capacityPRI)

Correct SSA records to reflect that I am not a statutory “individual” and that no statutory account number was ever assigned.
Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(2); 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2)(B)(i).

2. Flag the Numident Record as an Unauthorized capacityPUB Misclassification

The record was created under a statute that does not apply to me and must be corrected.
Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(1), (e)(5); 20 C.F.R. § 422.110.

3. Remove or Nullify Any Record Presuming a capacityPUB Relationship

Any record presuming a statutory “individual” relationship or a statutory “account number” must be corrected or removed.
Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(2), (e)(1), (e)(5).

I make this statement voluntarily and with full understanding that it is for the purpose of correcting an unauthorized agency record.

Signature

7. Conclusion

It doesn’t matter what the applicant checked; the SSA is the one that failed the “Due Diligence” of their own statutes. They used a form that explicitly told them they couldn’t collect information from you, and then they did it anyway. That is a procedural crime on their part.

In conclusion, the nonresident alien avoids the “civil law trap” of the individual by identifying the statutory mismatch on Form SS-5.

By remaining outside the definition of an “individual,” the private person retains their common law rights while using the broader status of “complainant” to force the government to pay for its administrative errors.

This approach moves beyond the concept of “administrative withdrawal” and shifts toward a “Notice of Statutory Defect,” ensuring that the private man is never mistakenly characterized as a statutory trustee or a civil law individual.