In re Bolter, 109666.

Decision Date29 June 1946
Docket NumberNo. 109666.,109666.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of California
PartiesIn re BOLTER.

Ray E. Griffin, Chief, Nationality Section Immigration and Naturalization Service, of Los Angeles, Cal., Representing the Government.

Benjamin W. Henderson. of Los Angeles, Cal., Attorney for Petitioner.

MATHES, District Judge.

Hannah Bolter has filed her petition to be naturalized as a citizen of the United States pursuant to § 310(a) of the Nationality Act of 1940. The petition is predicated upon petitioner's claim that she is an "alien who, after September 21, 1922, and prior to May 24, 1934, has married a citizen of the United States * * *." Title 8 U.S.C.A. § 710(a).

The facts are undisputed. Petitioner was married at Los Angeles March 2, 1930, to Jack Bolter, formerly Yechiel Baltinertis, who was born in Jerusalem, Palestine, on December 4, 1903, the son of Chajim Baltinertis, then a naturalized citizen of the United States.

The father of petitioner's spouse was naturalized September 4, 1903, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. He had resided in the United States for some time prior to his naturalization, and continued to reside here until some years thereafter when he returned to Palestine to live.

In March of 1924, son Yechiel, then twenty years of age, applied to the American Consul at Palestine for a United States passport. This passport was issued and he was permitted to enter the United States and take up residence as a citizen on May 30, 1924. He has resided in this country since that time, exercising without question his claimed rights of American citizenship, including the right to vote.

Meantime, on November 1, 1929, the certificate of citizenship which had been issued to the father, Chajim Baltinertis, on September 4, 1903, was cancelled by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York pursuant to § 15 of the Act of June 29, 1906, as amended, 34 Stat. 601, 40 Stat. 544, because he had returned to and taken up permanent residence in the country of his nativity. See: Title 8 U.S.C.A. § 738(c).

The son, now named Jack Bolter, was not a party to the proceeding for the cancellation of his father's citizenship, and did not learn of it until some years later following the filing of his application for a certificate of citizenship. This application the Commissioner denied March 10, 1945, "because a cancellation of naturalization of subject's father on November 1, 1929 by the United States District Court at New York divested the applicant of any citizenship rights which he acquired at birth."

The Commissioner opposes the petition at bar upon the same ground. So the sole question here is whether or not petitioner's husband, Jack Bolter, was a citizen of the United States at the time of her marriage to him March 2, 1930.

At the date of birth of petitioner's husband, § 1993 of the Revised Statutes provided, as it had since 1802, that:

"All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States." 54 Stat. 715, 8 U.S.C.A. § 720a. Cf. Title 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 601(c), 713, 807.

The plain wording of the statute just quoted makes it manifest that, since his father was admittedly a citizen in December of 1903, Jack Bolter was born a citizen of the United States. See: Citizenship of the United States, Expatriation and Protection Abroad, Document No. 326, p. 78, 39th Congress, 2nd session.

Moreover, that status acquired at birth was recognized twenty years later when he was issued a passport and permitted to enter the United States for permanent residence as an American citizen, and to vote and otherwise exercise the rights of citizenship.

It is conceded that Bolter himself has not done or omitted to do any act which could lawfully deprive him of the American citizenship which descended to him by operation of law at birth.

Section 739 of Title 8 U.S.C.A. as amended January 20, 1944, 58 Stat. 4, c. 2, § 3, provides that:

"A person who claims to have derived United States citizenship through the naturalization of a parent * * * or who is a citizen of the United States by virtue of the provisions of section 1993 of the United States Revised Statutes * * * may apply to the Commissioner for a certificate of citizenship."

As stated before, the Commissioner has denied a certificate to Bolter and would have the court deny his wife's petition here, upon the sole ground that concellation in 1929 of the citizenship of Bolter's father operated ipso facto, so the Commissioner urges, to deprive Bolter of his long-enjoyed status of an American citizen.

Thus, in the language of Schneiderman v. United States, 1942, 320 U.S. 118, 122, 123, 63 S.Ct. 1333, 1335, 87 L.Ed. 1796, the Government seeks "to deprive him of the priceless benefits that derive from that status. In its consequences it is more serious than a taking of one's property, or the imposition of a fine or other penalty. For it is safe to assert that nowhere in the world today is the right of citizenship of greater worth to an individual than it is in this country. It would be difficult to exaggerate its value and importance. By many it is regarded as the highest hope of civilized men. * * * such a right once conferred should not be taken away without the clearest sort of justification and proof. * * * the facts and the law should be construed as far as is reasonably possible in favor of the citizen."

The Commissioner contends that the law compels the harsh decision he has reached, because in enacting the Nationality Act of 1940 Congress provided in § 338(d), Title 8 U.S.C.A. § 738(d), that:

"The revocation and setting aside of the order admitting any person to citizenship and canceling his certificate of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Rosasco v. Brownell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • June 13, 1958
    ...2 Cir., 1949, 172 F.2d 979; and Antonacci v. Brownell, D.C.S.D.Ill.1955, 133 F.Supp. 201, cited by the defendant, and In re Bolter, D.C. S.D.Cal.1946, 66 F.Supp. 566, and In re Findan, D.C.D.R.I.1933, 4 F.Supp. 189, cited by the plaintiffs, are all cases involving the effect of a judgment c......
  • Sanders v. Clark
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • March 10, 1948
    ... ... Cf. In re Findan, D.C., 4 F.Supp. 189; In re Bolter, D.C., 66 F.Supp. 566 ...         Whether this view is correct is, at least, open to doubt. A naturalization proceeding is a determination ... ...
  • Meiji Fujizawa v. Acheson, 981.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • August 23, 1949
    ...must have been the free and voluntary act or acts of the citizen: Dos Reis ex rel. Camara v. Nicolls, 1 Cir., 161 F.2d 860; In re Bolter, D.C., 66 F.Supp. 566; Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 59 S.Ct. 884, 83 L.Ed. 1320; Attorney General of U.S. v. Ricketts, 9 Cir., 165 F.2d 193; Tadayasu Abo......
  • Battaglino v. Marshall
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • March 3, 1949
    ...father's certificate as above noted. Some support is to be found for the decision below. In re Findan, D.C., 4 F. Supp. 189; In re Bolter, D.C., 66 F.Supp. 566. But we think it is erroneous and that the error apparently is due to the fact that the required distinction was not made between t......
  • 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