Under the doctrine of timely retraction or recantation, an applicant can use as a defense to inadmissibility under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) that s/he timely retracted or recanted the statement. The effect of a timely retraction is that the misrepresentation is eliminated. See Matter of RR, 3 I. & N. Dec. 823 (BIA 1949); Matter of M, 9 I. & N. Dec. 118 (BIA 1960); Matter of RSJ, 22 I. & N. Dec. 863 (BIA 1999)). For the retraction to be effective, it has to be voluntary and without delay (timely). See Matter of RR, 3 I. & N. Dec. 823 (BIA 1949); see Matter of Namio, 14 I. & N. Dec. 412 (BIA 1973); referring to Matter of M, 9 I. & N. Dec. 118 (BIA 1960) and Llanos-Senarrilos v. United States, 177 F.2d 164 (9th Cir. 1949) (if the witness withdraws the false testimony of his own volition and without delay, and during the same hearing or examination under oath, the false statement and its withdrawal may be found to constitute one inseparable incident out of which an intention to deceive cannot rightly be drawn). The alien must correct his or her testimony voluntarily before the conclusion of the proceeding at which he or she gave false testimony, and before being exposed by the adjudicator or government official. See id. Admitting to the false claim of U.S. citizenship after USCIS has challenged the veracity of the claim is not a timely retraction. The BIA also held that an alien's recantation of the false testimony about one year later, and only after it became apparent that the disclosure of the falsity of the statements was imminent, was neither voluntary nor timely. See Matter of Namio, 14 I. & N. Dec. 412 (BIA 1973). A retraction or recantation is only timely if it is made in the same proceeding in which the person gave false testimony. Llanos-Senarillos, 177 F2d at 165 (9th Cir. 1949). Thanks to Raymond Reza Bolourtchi.