United States v. Meli, Civ. A. No. 12352.

• Decision Date: 24 December 1957
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 12352.
• Citation: 158 F. Supp. 217
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Angelo MELI, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

158 F. Supp. 217

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Angelo MELI, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 12352.

United States District Court E. D. Michigan, S. D.

December 24, 1957.

Fred W. Kaess, U. S. Atty., Dwight K. Hamborsky, Asst. U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff.

Joseph W. Louisell, Harry Kobel, Detroit, Mich., for defendant.

LEVIN, District Judge.

This is an action to revoke the citizenship of Angelo Meli, under Section 338 (a) of the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1158, Section 738(a) U.S.C. Title 8^*. Meli, a native of Italy, was naturalized in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on July 30, 1929. The complaint contains numerous allegations that the defendant's citizenship was fraudulently and illegally obtained, but the Government in its brief has abandoned all but the following grounds for revocation:

(1) That the defendant fraudulently obtained citizenship by concealing the fact that he had previously filed two prior petitions for naturalization.

(2) That the defendant fraudulently obtained citizenship by concealing his criminal record.

(3) That since the defendant fraudulently concealed the filing of prior petitions and his criminal record, he was not a person of good moral character eligible for citizenship.

"Nowhere in the world today is the right of citizenship of greater worth to an individual than it is in this country." Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 122, 63 S.Ct. 1333, 1335, 87 L.Ed. 1796. "* * * denaturalization, like deportation, may result in the loss `of all that makes life worth living.'" Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654, 659, 66 S.Ct. 1304, 1307, 90 L.Ed. 1500. These truths led the Court to lay down the rule that "the facts and the law should be construed as far as is reasonably possible in favor of the citizen" and require that the grounds for revocation of citizenship must be based upon "`clear, unequivocal, and convincing' evidence which does not leave the issue in doubt." Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 122, 135, 63 S.Ct. 1333, 1335, 1341, 87 L.Ed. 1796. See, also, Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 64 S.Ct. 1240, 88 L.Ed. 1525.

The defendant was born in Italy in 1897 and has continually resided in the United States since 1913 and has been a citizen since 1929. He has been married to a native American citizen since 1924 and all four of his children were born in this country. His older son served honorably in the United States Armed Forces during World War II. His younger son recently sacrificed his life in the military service of his country while performing an act of heroism, leaving a widow and three children now cared for by the defendant.

In relating this family background and the implications of hardship in the event the petition for denaturalization is granted, I am not unmindful of the mandate upon me to revoke defendant's citizenship if the Government demonstrates by appropriate proof that he obtained his naturalization fraudulently or illegally, as alleged. Corrado v. United States, 6 Cir., 227 F.2d 780; United States v. Montalbano (United States v. Genovese), 3 Cir., 236 F.2d 757. Thus the crucial question is whether the Government has proved, by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence, the alleged fraud or illegality. These are the facts:

On September 19, 1922, the defendant, who was then a resident of Detroit, Michigan, filed a petition for naturalization in the Circuit Court of Wayne County, Michigan. He failed to prosecute this petition and on June 14, 1923, it was dismissed for that reason without a hearing on the merits. The defendant, on March 31, 1924, again petitioned for naturalization in the same court. On April 18, 1925, because of the defendant's failure to prosecute, this petition was also dismissed, again without a hearing on the merits.

The defendant moved to Brooklyn, New York, in March 1927, and took employment as a construction laborer. On April 4, 1929, he petitioned for naturalization in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and this petition was granted on July 30, 1929.

It is alleged that the defendant concealed his prior applications for citizenship because of the following entry on the petition:

"Tenth. I have not heretofore made petition for citizenship to any court. ( made petition of citizenship o the ______ Court of ______"

The x's represent the typing of an Immigration Service typist superimposed on the printed form. The entire petition was prepared by the typist from information furnished on other papers. This entry is no convincing proof of fraud. Granting that the defendant read the petition, the meaning of the superimposed x's is hardly clear on its face and it would be hazardous, indeed, to assume it was clear to an immigrant layman with a second-grade education who was handed a typewritten form to sign. It would be a negation of reality not to recognize the emotional stresses to which an immigrant is subject when embarking upon the momentous steps of acquiring the long sought for status of a citizen. Careless and negligent though it may have been for Meli not to have uncovered the recorded errors, I do not, from such conduct, impute a fraudulent attempt to conceal.

The Government's contention that defendant concealed his prior applications for citizenship rests, therefore, on the assertion that the concealment took place when he furnished the information which formed the basis for the petition for naturalization. The preliminary form for petition for naturalization contained the following answer:

"I have not previously made petition for naturalization." The word "not" and other...