King v. Rogers

Citation463 F.2d 1188
Decision Date26 June 1972
Docket NumberNo. 26725.,26725.
PartiesElihu KING, aka Lee Dov King, aka Simon Matthew King, aka Lee Dov Rappoport, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William P. ROGERS, as Secretary of State of the United States of America, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

Charles Gordon, Gen. Counsel, Washington, D. C., James R. Dooley, Asst. U. S. Atty., Robert L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

Burton C. Jacobson (argued), of Atkins & Jacobson, Beverly Hills, Cal., for appellee.

Before BARNES, WRIGHT and CHOY, Circuit Judges.

CHOY, Circuit Judge:

The Secretary of State appeals a district court judgment finding that Elihu King remains a United States citizen. The district court held that the Secretary had failed to prove that King voluntarily renounced his United States citizenship when he became a naturalized British subject. We reverse.

King was born in the United States, and became a citizen at birth. His parents were divorced, and he lived with his father until 1948, when he obtained a United States passport. While en route to Palestine, he was interned by the Lebanese government during the Arab-Israeli war. He was released and sent to Italy, where his passport was taken from him by Italian officials. King immediately returned to Palestine without his passport, and served in the Israeli armed forces.

After the war, he attempted to obtain a new United States passport, but bureaucratic delays caused him to obtain an Israeli laissez-passer to visit his mother in Malaya. There King again applied for a United States passport. The Secretary of State agreed to grant a passport, but only for return to the United States. King refused the condition, and applied for a British passport, becoming a naturalized British subject in 1954.

In 1958, King returned to Israel, becoming an Israeli citizen. There he subsequently married a United States citizen. In 1964, he attempted once more to obtain a United States passport, but was refused on the ground that he had relinquished his citizenship in 1954. King obtained an alien immigrant visa, returned to the United States, and began this action. He is eligible for naturalization as the spouse of a United States citizen.

The Secretary's defense to King's suit rests upon 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a) (1), which reads in relevant part:

". . . A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by—(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application . . ."

We assume, without deciding, that specific subjective intent to renounce United States citizenship is required for expatriation.1 The Secretary may prove this subjective intent by evidence of an explicit renunciation, Jolley v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 441 F.2d 1245 (5th Cir. 1971), acts inconsistent with United States citizenship, Baker v. Rusk, 296 F.Supp. 1244 (C.D., Cal., 1969), or by "affirmative voluntary acts clearly manifesting a decision to accept foreign nationality . . .," In re Balsamo, 306 F.Supp. 1028, 1033 (N.D., Ill. 1969). Such proof need be only by a preponderance of the evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1481(c).

The Secretary amply met his burden in this case, and the district court was clearly erroneous in its decision. First, to obtain British naturalization, King took an oath of allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II,2 which while alone insufficient to prove renunciation provides substantial evidence of intent. Baker, supra, 296 F.Supp. at 1246. Second, in his correspondence with his Selective Service board, King listed his citizenship as British and Israeli; and in 1954 he returned his draft card with the notation:

"Dear Sirs,
"Please take my name of your lists; I am a British subject and not liable for service in the U.S. forces."

Third, in 1959, while investigating the possibility of a United States visa, King executed an "Affidavit of Expatriated Person" before the United States Vice Consul in Haifa, Israel. The affidavit read in part:

"I, Lee Dov King, solemnly swear that I was naturalized as a citizen of the United Kingdom upon my own application . . . on March 16, 1954.
"I further swear that the act mentioned above was my free and voluntary act and that no undue influence, compulsion, force or duress
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • US v. Schiffer
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • September 8, 1993
    ...603 (1958) (Warren, C.J., dissenting). Richards v. Secretary of State, 752 F.2d 1413, 1420 n. 5 (9th Cir.1985);14accord King v. Rogers, 463 F.2d 1188, 1189 (9th Cir.1972). Moreover, specific intent may be established inferentially by evidence demonstrating what steps the defendant did or di......
  • Survey of the Law of Expatriation, 02-9
    • United States
    • Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice
    • June 12, 2002
    ...amounted to nothing more than a statement of dual nationality. Id. (citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit concluded in King v. Rogers, 463 F.2d 1188 (9th Cir. 1972), that Elihu King was no longer a U.S. citizen. The court that, "to obtain British naturalization, King took an oath of allegia......
  • U.S. v. Matheson, 595
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • March 3, 1976
    ...or oath of loyalty to another sovereign can result in the expatriation of an American citizen. See, e. g., King v. Rogers, 463 F.2d 1188, 1189-90 (9th Cir. 1972); Jolley v. INS, 441 F.2d 1245, 1249 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 946, 92 S.Ct. 302, 30 L.Ed.2d 262 Appellant offers several......
  • Terrazas v. Vance
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • May 26, 1978
    ...acted voluntarily unless he can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his actions were involuntary. See King v. Rogers, 463 F.2d 1188, 1189 (9th Cir. 1972). The district court in applying those standards to this case found that the government proved that plaintiff had declared his a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT