United States v. Kreticos, 4893.

Decision Date10 April 1930
Docket NumberNo. 4893.,4893.
Citation40 F.2d 1020,59 App. DC 305
PartiesUNITED STATES v. KRETICOS.
CourtU.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.

GORDON, Associate Justice.

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: "Data taken from crew list. Deserting seaman, no record of admission for permanent residence."

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:

"The petition shall also be verified by the affidavits of at least two credible witnesses, who are citizens of the United States, and who shall state in their affidavits that they have personally known the applicant to be a resident of the United States for a period of at least five years continuously, and of the State, Territory, or district in which the application is made for a period of at least one year immediately preceding the date of the filing of his petition, and that they each have personal knowledge that the petitioner is a person of good moral character, and that he is in every way qualified, in their opinion, to be admitted as a citizen of the United States.

"At the time of filing his petition there shall be filed with the clerk of the court a certificate from the Department of Commerce and Labor, if the petitioner arrives in the United States after the passage of this Act, stating the date, place, and manner of his arrival in the United States, and the declaration of intention of such petitioner, which certificate and declaration shall be attached to and made a part of said petition."

Section 4, subd. Fourth (8 USCA § 382), declares: "It shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court admitting any alien to citizenship that immediately preceding the date of his application he 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, and that during that time he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same. In addition to the oath of the applicant, the testimony of at least two witnesses, citizens of the United States, as to the facts of residence, moral character, and attachment to the principles of the Constitution, shall be required, and the name, place of residence, and occupation of each witness shall be set forth in the record."

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:

"Sec. 2. (a) That the number of aliens of any nationality who may be admitted under the immigration laws to the United States in any fiscal year shall be limited to 3 per centum of the number of foreign-born persons of such nationality resident in the United States as determined by the United States census of 1910. * * *

"(d) When the maximum number of aliens of any nationality who may be admitted in any fiscal year under this Act shall have been admitted all other aliens of such nationality, except as otherwise provided in this Act, who may apply for admission during the same fiscal year shall be excluded. * * *

"Sec. 5. That this Act shall take effect and be enforced 15 days after its enactment (except sections 1 and 3 and subdivisions (b) and (c) of section 2, which shall take effect immediately upon the enactment of this Act), and shall continue in force until June 30, 1922, and the number of aliens of any nationality who may be admitted during the remaining period of the current fiscal year, from the date when this Act becomes effective to June 30, shall be limited in proportion to the number admissible during the fiscal year 1922."

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: "No alien has the slightest right to naturalization unless all statutory requirements are complied with; and every certificate of citizenship must be treated as granted upon condition that the government may challenge it, as provided in § 15, and demand its cancellation unless issued in accordance with such requirements. If procured when prescribed qualifications have no existence in fact, it is illegally procured; a manifest mistake by the judge cannot supply these nor render their existence nonessential." 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
5 cases
  • United States v. Parisi, 2471.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 11 d4 Agosto d4 1938
    ...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
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 19 d1 Dezembro d1 1949
    ...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
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • 30 d1 Março d1 1942
    ...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.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • 14 d3 Abril d3 1954
    ...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......
  • 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