United States v. Kreticos, 4893.
Decision Date | 10 April 1930 |
Docket Number | No. 4893.,4893. |
Citation | 40 F.2d 1020,59 App. DC 305 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. KRETICOS. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Leo A. Rover and Rebekah S. Greathouse, both of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
S. McC. Hawken and Geo. F. Havell, both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice, and GORDON, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia admitting the appellee, John N. Kreticos, to citizenship.
On July 2, 1921, the appellee, a native of Greece, arrived in the United States on board the steamer "King Alexander." He deserted his ship and on April 12, 1922, filed a declaration of intention of becoming a citizen, in the common pleas court of Berks county, Pa. He filed a petition for naturalization in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia on March 28, 1928, and filed therewith a certificate issued by the Department of Labor labeled "Certificate of Arrival" on the regular form of the Department of Labor for such certificates but containing the following statement:
At the naturalization hearing the naturalization examiner objected to the granting of the certificate of naturalization on the ground that the appellee was in the United States illegally, in that he was a deserting seaman and that the document used as a certificate of arrival showed on its face that it could not be used as such. This objection was overruled and an exception noted, and it is from this ruling and from the order granting the certificate of naturalization that this appeal is taken.
Section 4 of the Naturalization Act (June 29, 1906), 34 Stat. 596 (8 USCA § 372), declares: "That an alien may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States in the following manner and not otherwise."
Section 4, subd. First (8 USCA § 373), declares that he shall file his declaration of intention and what said declaration shall contain.
Section 4, subd. Second (8 USCA § 379), declares that not less than two nor more than seven years after he has made such declaration of intention he shall make and file his petition for naturalization, setting forth certain requirements, among them that:
Section 4, subd. Fourth (8 USCA § 382), declares:
Section 2 of the Immigration Act (February 5, 1917), 39 Stat. 875 (8 USCA § 132), declares: "That there shall be levied, collected, and paid a tax of $8 for every alien, including alien seamen regularly admitted as provided in this Act, entering the United States. * * *"
Section 16 (8 USCA § 152), declares that "all aliens arriving at ports of the United States shall be examined by not less than two such medical officers at the discretion of the Secretary of Labor, and under such administrative regulations as he may prescribe. * * *"
The Act to Limit the Immigration of Aliens into the United States (May 19, 1921), 42 Stat. 5, declares:
The law fixes residence as one of the primary jurisdictional requirements. In view of the manner in which appellee entered the United States it must be determined whether the minimum period of five years' continuous residence prescribed by section 4, subdivision Fourth of the Naturalization Act, has been complied with, and whether he is entitled to be naturalized on a certificate of irregular entry.
The mere landing in this country without regular entry does not constitute such beginning to reside, upon which can be based a permanent, continuous residence; and an alien cannot begin a permanent residence except by entering in accordance with the immigration laws.
No alien has a right to naturalization unless all statutory requirements are complied with. In a case in which a naturalization certificate was canceled because the hearing upon the petition was held in the chambers of the judge adjoining the courtroom, instead of in open court, as required by law, the Supreme Court said: United States v. Ginsberg, 243 U. S. 472, 37 S. Ct. 422, 425, 61 L. Ed. 853. To the same effect see, United States v. Ness, 245 U. S. 319, 38 S. Ct. 118, 62 L. Ed. 321; Maney v. United States, 278 U. S. 17, 49 S. Ct. 15, 73 L. Ed. 156; Ex parte Eberhardt (D. C.) 270 F. 334.
Appellee's entrance into the United States was a mere landing and he has never begun a residence here, and he cannot begin to reside continuously except by entering in accordance with the requirements of the immigration laws.
Minor children of naturalized citizens, although born abroad before the naturalization of their parents, become ipso facto citizens of the United States from the time they begin to reside permanently in the United States. Act March 2, 1907, § 5, 34 Stat. 1229 (8 USCA § 8).
In Zartarian v. Billings, 204 U. S. 170, 27 S. Ct. 182, 51 L. Ed. 428, the petitioner, formerly a subject of the Sultan of Turkey, became a naturalized citizen of the United States. One of his children, born in Turkey just prior to his leaving that country, arrived at Boston subsequent to his naturalization and while the child was still a minor, but was debarred from landing by the United States Commissioner of Immigration because she was found to have a dangerous and contagious disease. The court said that the minor was debarred...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Parisi, 2471.
...228, 230, 45 S.Ct. 257, 69 L.Ed. 585; In re Jensen, D.C., 11 F.2d 414, 415; Hurst v. Nagle, 9 Cir., 30 F.2d 346; United States v. Kreticos, 59 App.D.C. 305, 40 F.2d 1020; In re Wieg, D.C., 30 F.2d 418; United States v. Rodgers, D.C., 182 F. 274, 276, affirmed, 3 Cir., 185 F. 334, The failur......
-
Kristensen v. McGrath
...of a temporary visa, is not credited to the five year residence requirement prerequisite to naturalization. United States v. Kreticos, 1930, 59 App. D.C. 305, 307, 40 F.2d 1020, 1022; In re Wieg, D.C.S.D.Tex.1929, 30 F.2d 418; Ex parte Domenici, D.Mass.1925, 8 F.2d 366, 367. The reasoning o......
-
United States v. Shapiro
...D.C., 8 F.2d 374, 375. The use of a fraudulently procured passport to gain admission to this country is unlawful." United States v. Kreticos, 59 App.D.C. 305, 40 F.2d 1020; United States v. Parisi, D.C.Md.1939, 24 F.Supp. 414; In re Scriver, D.C.N.Y.1935, 9 F.Supp. Entry into the United Sta......
-
United States v. Anastasio, Civ. No. 1189-52.
...Werblow v. United States, 2 Cir., 134 F.2d 791, 792; Subhi Mustafa Sadi v. United States, 2 Cir., 48 F.2d 1040; United States v. Kreticos, 59 App.D.C. 305, 40 F.2d 1020, 1021; In re Wieg, D.C., 30 F.2d 418; In re Simmiolkjier, D.C., 71 F.Supp. 553; Ex parte Fillibertie, D.C., 62 F.Supp. 744......