Application of Reyes, 16625.
| Decision Date | 12 April 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 16625.,16625. |
| Parties | Matter of the Application of Artemio B. REYES. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii |
Pratt, Tavares, & Cassidy, Daniel H. Case, Honolulu, Hawaii, for petitioner.
George Z. Reich, Designated Naturalization Examiner for U. S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Honolulu, Hawaii, for the Government.
Petitioner is a native of the Philippines who came to Hawaii in 1946. He filed a petition for naturalization as a citizen of the United States on February 25, 1955. The Designated Examiner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service recommended denial of the petition on the ground that petitioner had been absent from the United States for a continuous period of more than one year, thus breaking the continuity of the residence required for naturalization by 8 U.S.C.A. § 1427.
Petitioner has never abandoned his residence in Hawaii, but has been away on three occasions. The significant trip lasted from May 8, 1952, until July 18, 1953. Petitioner was employed as a civilian worker by a private firm doing construction work for the United States Navy on Kwajalein Island, the principal of numerous low coral islands comprising Kwajalein Atoll. The Atoll is located in the Ralik Chain of the Marshall Islands, and is situate approximately 9° north of the equator and 2100 miles southwest of the Hawaiian Archipelago.
The sole question presented at the hearing of the petition for naturalization was whether petitioner had complied with the requirements of 8 U.S.C.A. § 1427 relating to residence in the United States. Section 1427(a) reads in part as follows:
"(a) No person, * * * shall be naturalized unless such petitioner, (1) immediately preceding the date of filing his petition for naturalization has resided continuously, after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, within the United States for at least five years * * *."
This residence requirement is qualified by § 1427(b), which relates to absences from the United States, and reads in part as follows:
"Absence from the United States for a continuous period of one year or more during the period for which continuous residence is required for admission to citizenship * * * shall break the continuity of such residence, * * *."
Petitioner has attempted to establish that Kwajalein should be considered part of the United States for purposes of naturalization, and that he was, therefore, never "absent" from the United States. Kwajalein was formerly part of the Japanese mandated group under the League of Nations. Following World War II, the Marshall, Caroline, and Marianas Islands (excepting Guam, at that time a possession of the United States) passed to the United Nations as successor to the League of Nations. On July 18, 1947, these Islands were placed under the control of the United States by a "Trusteeship Agreement"1 with the United Nations. The United States was designated as the "administering authority of the trust territory" and was given comprehensive powers over the entire area.2 As a practical matter, it appears that the United States exercises as much power over these Islands as it does over any of its possessions, and there is merit in petitioner's claim that because of control of Kwajalein by the Navy and the entire appearance of United States domination, it should be held that petitioner was not absent from the United States.
But there are compelling reasons why Kwajalein cannot be considered as part of the United States for purposes of naturalization. Congress has declared, in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, that, "The term `United States', * * * when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States." 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101(a) (38). It has also defined the term "foreign state" as including, "* * * territories under mandate or trusteeship * * *." 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101(a) (14).
Also cogent is the force of the Presidential Proclamation of July 2, 1952,3 declaring the annual...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People of Saipan v. United States Dept. of Interior, Civ. No. 72-3720.
...on a construction of the term "foreign country" as used in the Tort Claims Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(k). Similarly, Application of Reyes, 140 F.Supp. 130 (D. Hawaii 1956) and Aradanas v. Hogan, 155 F.Supp. 546 (D.Hawaii 1957) construe the term "foreign state" as used in the Immigration and ......
-
World Communications Corp. v. MICRONESIAN, ETC.
...to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(k)) and Aradanas v. Hogan, 155 F.Supp. 546 (D.Hawaii 1957) and Application of Reyes, 140 F.Supp. 130 (D.Hawaii 1956) (interpreting the "foreign state" definition in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(14). This Cou......
-
Aradanas v. Hogan, Civ. No. 1529.
...point has already been decided by this Court, at least for the purposes of naturalization, by Judge Wiig in the Reyes case found in 140 F.Supp. 130.5 And it is said, and I believe for this proposition the Chief Justice of the United States is quoted in the Gonzales case,6 that the 1952 Act ......
-
Aradanas v Hogan
...point has already been decided by this Court, at least for the purposes of naturalization, by Judge Wiig in the ReyesELR case found in 140 F.Supp. 130.2 And it is said, and I believe for this proposition the Chief Justice of the United States is quoted in the GonzalesUNKUNKELR case,3 that t......