Petition of Berini, 491096.

Decision Date15 June 1953
Docket NumberNo. 491096.,491096.
PartiesPetition of BERINI.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

Morris E. Vogel, New York City, for petitioner.

Harry Addelson, United States Naturalization Examiner, Brooklyn, N. Y.

GALSTON, District Judge.

The petitioner first came to the United States as a student on August 4, 1938, and on November 29, 1939 took the necessary steps to have his status adjusted on a permanent legal basis. He married a native born United States citizen on February 9, 1947. The petitioner and his wife have two children, both of whom are native born. The petition for naturalization was filed on May 29, 1952 pursuant to the provisions of section 310(b) of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended, 8 U.S.C.A. § 710(b).

The petitioner, on September 2, 1942, executed Selective Service Form DSS 304, "Alien's Personal History and Statement". Therein he said:

"I do object to service in the land or naval forces of the United States, based on a Swiss Treaty."

This form contained the reservation that the election of the registrant to be relieved from military service would debar him from thereafter becoming a citizen of the United States. On February 7, 1944 he executed Revised Selective Service Form 301, entitled "Application by Alien for Relief from Military Service". This form too contained the application for relief from liability for training and service in the land or naval forces of the United States, and the signature of the registrant followed immediately below. However, this Selective Service Form differed from Form 301 in that below the signature of the registrant appears this printed statement:

"Section 3(a) of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended, provides in part `that any citizen or subject of a neutral country shall be relieved from liability for training and service under this Act if, prior to his induction into the land or naval forces, he has made application to be relieved from such liability in the manner prescribed by and in accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed by the President, but any person who makes such application shall thereafter be debarred from becoming a citizen of the United States'".

The logical inquiry, therefore, is why was Form 301 modified as appears in the Revised Form. Apparently both seek to accomplish the same end in that if the registrant elects to claim immunity from military service, he will be debarred from becoming a citizen of the United States.

The petitioner was relieved from service and did not in fact serve in the armed forces of the United States at any time. There is no question that the petitioner was within the law in seeking to be relieved from service. Prior to doing so, however, he sought the aid of the Legation of Switzerland, for there was an existing treaty between the United States and Switzerland known as The Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Extradition, of November 25, 1850.

It is important to notice the sequence, then, of the steps which followed. The Swiss Legation, on August 20, 1942, requested of the State Department that the petitioner be granted an unconditional release from the liability of military service in conformity with the aforesaid treaty. On August 31, 1942 the Department of State acknowledged the receipt of the request and referred it to the appropriate agency of the United States Government for further attention. Then on February 1, 1944, the Swiss Legation wrote to the petitioner:

"We are forwarding to you, herewith, two copies of DSS Form 301, revised, which kindly execute and file with your Local Board. This action on your part is necessary in order to comply with the exemption procedure; your Local Board, in accordance with Selective Service Regulations, as amended, will then classify you in Class IV-C.
"Please note that, through filing of DSS Form 301, revised, you will not waive your right to apply for American citizenship papers. The final decision regarding your naturalization will remain solely with the competent Naturalization Courts."

Accordingly, the crucial question presented is whether the petitioner is debarred from citizenship by virtue of section 3(a) of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 303(a), and section 315 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of December 24, 1952, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1426.

Whether the petitioner is debarred from citizenship by virtue of section 3(a) of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended, was, in a case substantially analogous to the instant case, passed on by the Supreme Court in Moser v. United States, 341 U.S. 41, 71 S.Ct. 553, 556, 95 L.Ed. 729. In that case it appeared that the petitioner had entered the United States in 1937, returned to Switzerland for service in the Swiss Army, and subsequently returned to this country. He married a United States citizen. There too the petitioner, Moser, sought advice and aid from the Legation of Switzerland in securing his deferment from Selective Service in the United States. The petitioner advised the Local Board that he had taken steps with the Swiss Legation to be released unconditionally from service under the treaty. The Swiss Legation, on receiving the petitioner's request for assistance, communicated with the Department of State. That department referred the request to the Selective Service System, which replied that the Local Board had been instructed to inform petitioner that he might obtain Revised Form 301 from the Swiss Legation, to be used in claiming exemption. The Selective...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • United States v. Hoellger
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • January 13, 1960
    ...106 F.Supp. 169; Petition of Molo, S.D. N.Y.1952, 107 F.Supp. 137; Petition of Miranda, E.D.N.Y.1953, 111 F.Supp. 481;8 Petition of Berini, E.D.N.Y. 1953, 112 F.Supp. 837;7 Petition of Caputo, E.D.N.Y.1954, 118 F.Supp. 870;7 Petition of Zumsteg, S.D.N.Y.1954, 122 F.Supp. 670;78 Petition of ......
  • Matter of H----
    • United States
    • U.S. DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals
    • October 13, 1960
    ...1955); Application of Mirzoeff, 253 F.2d 671 (C.A. 2, 1958). Petition of Kutay, 121 F. Supp. 537 (D.C. Cal., 1954); Petition of Berini, 112 F. Supp. 837 (D.C. N.Y., 1953) (held, alien had no knowledge under Moser rule); Petition of Gourary, 148 F. Supp. 140 (D.C. N.Y., 1957) (held, Austrian......
  • Matter of R---- E----
    • United States
    • U.S. DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals
    • June 18, 1962
    ...reached in each of the following cases: Machado v. McGrath, 193 F.2d 706 (C.A.D.C., 1951), cert. den. 342 U.S. 948; Petition of Berini, 112 F.Supp. 837 (E.D.N.Y., 1953); Petition of Sally, 151 F.Supp. 888 (S.D.N.Y., 1957); In re Planas, 152 F.Supp. 456 (D.C.N.J., 1957); and In re Bouchage's......
  • Petition of Kutay, 153025.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • May 28, 1954
    ...was in a footnote rather than in the body of the form. 9 Machado v. McGrath, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 70, 193 F.2d 706; Petition of Berini, D. C.E.D.N.Y., 112 F.Supp. 837. 10 Acheson v. Wohlmuth, 90 U.S.App.D. C. 375, 196 F.2d 866; Revedin v. Acheson, 2 Cir., 194 F.2d 482; Petition of Miranda, D.C.E......
  • 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