Schwab v. Coleman, 5293.
Citation | 145 F.2d 672,156 ALR 355 |
Decision Date | 10 November 1944 |
Docket Number | No. 5293.,5293. |
Parties | SCHWAB et al. v. COLEMAN, U. S. District Judge. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) |
Simon E. Sobeloff, of Baltimore, Md. (Bernard M. Goldstein, of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), and Joseph Savoretti, Acting Com'r, Immigration and Naturalization Service, pro se, in support of petition.
Before PARKER, SOPER, and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
This is an application for a writ of mandamus to require Hon. William C. Coleman, one of the District judges of the United States for the District of Maryland, to pass upon certain petitions for naturalization pending before him. The petitioners here are the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization of the United States and five persons who filed the petitions for naturalization before Judge Coleman. Each of these five persons has complied with all the requirements of the naturalization laws for admission to citizenship; and, as to each, admission to citizenship is recommended by the Commissioner. Each, however, is a native of Germany who left that country after the beginning of the Nazi regime. Judge Coleman refused to pass upon their applications and continued the hearings thereon because of a policy which he has adopted not to grant citizenship during the war to German enemy aliens who have left Germany since the beginning of the Nazi regime, except in the case of members of our armed forces.
There is no dispute as to the facts or as to their showing without contradiction that the petitioners are persons of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States. One is a Rabbi of a Hebrew Synagogue in Baltimore. Two of the others are a noted ophthalmologist, attached to the Wilmer Clinic of Johns Hopkins Hospital, and his wife. Another is a woman whose father is dead, whose mother is in a German concentration camp, who has no relatives in foreign military service, who has three cousins in the armed forces of the United States and who desires citizenship in order that she herself may join the Women's Army Corps. The remaining applicant is a trained nurse, the wife of an officer in the United States Army. The following succinct statement of the pertinent facts appears in the brief of the Commissioner:
Judge Coleman has filed a written opinion setting forth his reasons for refusing to pass upon the applications for citizenship. He refers to this opinion as his answer to the petition for mandamus; and we have given it careful and respectful consideration. In that opinion he makes it very clear that he is refusing to take final action upon the petitions for two reasons, (1) because the war makes it impossible to conduct an investigation in Germany with regard to the petitioners, and (2) because he thinks that refugees driven out of Germany by the Nazi regime are not able, because of the emotional strain to which they have been subjected, to attach themselves to this country in the manner that the law contemplates. The heart of the court's reasoning is set forth in the following excerpt from his opinion:
And more specifically with respect to petitioners the Court sai...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
International Union v. Underwood Corporation
...damages. United Const. Workers v. Laburnum Const. Corp., 347 U.S. 656, 74 S.Ct. 833, 98 L. Ed. 1025. 4 See, e. g., Schwab v. Coleman, 4 Cir., 145 F.2d 672, 678, 156 A.L.R. 355; United States v. Hall, 9 Cir., 145 F.2d 781, 784; 6 Moore, Federal Practice (2d ed.) pp. 94 and note 50, 102 and n......
-
Wagafe v. Trump
...come within its provisions are entitled to the benefit thereof as a matter of right, not as a matter of grace." See Schwab v. Coleman, 145 F.2d 672, 676 (4th Cir. 1944). Defendants' motion to dismiss Claims One, Two, Three, Five, Six, and Ten on the basis of standing is DENIED. 4. Extreme V......
-
Miriyeva v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs.
...... those who come within its provisions are entitled to the. benefit thereof as a matter of right[.]” Schwab v. Coleman , 145 F.2d 672, 676 (4th Cir. 1944). . . Plaintiff. has alleged that USCIS unlawfully implemented a ......
-
Marcantonio v. United States, 6166.
...the statute a test which Congress has not seen fit to impose. This the judge may not do. As said by this court in Schwab v. Coleman, 4 Cir., 145 F.2d 672, 677, 156 A.L.R. 355: "While a wide discretion is lodged in the judge who hears a petition for naturalization, this discretion cannot be ......