the district court abused its discretion in denying this motion. 2 . If Arango was not a lawful permanent resident at the time of his naturalization because of his fraudulent marriage, then his citizenship was illegally procured. See Fedorenko, 449 U.S. at 514, 101 S.Ct. 737 (“[A] naturalized citizen’s failure to comply with the statutory prerequisites for naturalization renders his certificate of citizenship revocable as 'illegally procured’ under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a).... 8 U.S.C. §§ 1427(a) and 1429[] require[] an applicant for citizenship to be lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence”). 3 . We have previously recognized that the government can be bound by a cooperation agreement in the immigration context. See Thomas v. INS, 35 F.3d 1332, 1337 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Although the government now argues that,
holding that the alien was entitled to performance by the government of its promise that the government would not oppose any of his motions for relief from deportation holding that amtrak is an agency of the government  for purposes of the constitutional obligations of government holding that it is not within the province of any court unless expressly authorized by law to review the determination of the political branch of the government to exclude a given alien holding that ignorance by one prosecutor of promise made by another is irrelevant since the prosecutors office is an entity and  a promise made by one attorney must be attributed for these purposes to the government holding that the defendant failed to demonstrate government acquiescence in part because he never reported alleged gang incidents to the government and therefore could not prove that the government was even aware of a problem