Rosenberg v. United States, 4768.
Citation | 60 F.2d 475 |
Decision Date | 19 July 1932 |
Docket Number | No. 4768.,4768. |
Parties | ROSENBERG v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
A. E. Hurshman, of Philadelphia, Pa., and Everett Kent, of Bangor, Pa., for appellant.
Edward W. Wells, U. S. Atty., of Philadelphia, Pa., and Charles M. Bolich, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Allentown, Pa.
Before BUFFINGTON and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges, and THOMSON, District Judge.
This case concerns the cancellation of a certificate of naturalization. The pertinent act, 34 Stat. at Large, 596, § 4 (8 USCA § 382), provides that a court may grant a petition for naturalization where the applicant "immediately preceding the date of his application * * * has resided continuously within the United States, five years at least, and within the State or Territory where such court is at the time held one year at least."
In pursuance of that statute, one Louis Rosenberg presented a petition to a New York court praying naturalization and asserting that he had resided continuously within that state for one year preceding the date of his application. Thereupon that court, after hearing, granted his petition and issued a certificate of naturalization. Under the law, such residence was a necessary element to confer jurisdiction on that court.
In the case of United States v. Spohrer (C. C.) 175 F. 440, 442, it was held:
In Johannessen v. United States, 225 U. S. 227, 32 S. Ct. 613, 617, 56 L. Ed. 1066, it was held:
To prevent such wrongs, Congress made it the duty of district attorneys "to institute proceedings in any court having jurisdiction to naturalize aliens in the judicial district in which the naturalized citizen may reside at the time of bringing the suit, for the purpose of setting aside and canceling the certificate of citizenship on the ground of fraud or on the ground that such certificate of citizenship was illegally procured." 8 USCA § 405.
In pursuance thereof, the district attorney, alleging that Rosenberg was a resident of the state of Pennsylvania and that he was such resident at the time of the granting of his naturalization by the New York court, filed a petition on March 17, 1927, on behalf of the United States, in the court below, praying the certificate of naturalization be canceled. In this proceeding Rosenberg appeared, made defense, and a large amount of testimony was taken. After hearing, the court on January 23, 1931, entered a decree canceling the certificate of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Costello v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
...denaturalization related back to the date of naturalization. Battaglino v. Marshall, 2 Cir., 172 F.2d 979, 981; Rosenberg v. United States, 3 Cir., 60 F.2d 475. The Second Circuit was alone among the federal courts in thinking that this nunc pro tunc concept which had been judicially develo......
-
United States v. Kusche
... ... (b) Amounts to Fraud Alone: ... Stranack 2/18/25 DC WD WASH 6 F.2d 334 No certificate of arrival ... Rosenberg 7/19/32 CCA 3rd 60 F.2d 475 Not resident of state where ... ...
-
U.S. v. Rebelo
...from such naturalization." Daniel Levy, U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization Handbook § 14:30 (2004) (citing Rosenberg v. United States, 60 F.2d 475, 476 (3d Cir.1932)). The foregoing principles are entirely consistent with the proposition that denaturalization is remedial in nature, while p......
-
United States Eichenlaub v. Shaughnessy United States Willumeit v. Shaughnessy v. 15 8212 16, 1949
...relators' naturalizations on the ground of fraud in their procurement deprived them of their naturalizations ab initio. Rosenberg v. United States, 2 Cir., 60 F.2d 475. They thus would be returned to their status as aliens as of the date of their respective naturalizations. Accordingly, the......