United States v. Shanahan
| Decision Date | 08 April 1916 |
| Docket Number | 1377. |
| Citation | 232 F. 169 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. SHANAHAN. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Robert J. Sterrett, Asst. U.S. Atty., and Francis Fisher Kane, U.S Atty., both of Philadelphia, Pa.
O Charles Brodersen and Benjamin H. Leiterman, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent.
The respondent was naturalized July 17, 1914. There was and is no reason to doubt that he emigrated from Ireland to this country with the full bona fide purpose to cast his lot with us. He followed this with the required declaration of his intention to become a citizen. He then filed his petition in accordance with the requirement of the law, and supported this with the full measure of proof that he was (otherwise than because of the objection next stated) entitled to be granted the privilege of citizenship for which he asked. The court 'was satisfied' by the proofs submitted and admitted him. The objection referred to was based upon the fact that after he had made his declaration of intention he received and message from his old mother that she was critically ill and wished to again see her son before she died. Answering to this appeal, he went to her. The good faith of his statement that he went only in response to this appeal, and with every purpose to continue his residence in America, is evidenced by the fact that he came back on the first ship which sailed for this country after his mother was buried. The present petition for cancellation of his certificate of naturalization is based upon the sole ground of this break in the time of his physical presence in this country, and that because of this he has not 'continuously resided' here. There is no suggestion of imposition upon the court, or concealment or attempted concealment of the facts, much less of fraud, and no suggestion even that the 'certificate of citizenship was illegally procured,' except in the averment of error in the court in its finding of the fact of continuous residence.
Congress in pursuance of its constitutional power 'to establish a uniform rule of naturalization,' has provided us with our present system. These laws confide the power to certain courts, and impose the duty upon the District Courts of admitting to citizenship. Certain things are preliminarily essential to the exercise of this power. These are the jurisdictional facts. One of them is a previous declaration of the intention of the applicant to become a citizen. Another is that he shall within the prescribed time thereafter file his petition in the required form, and this petition must be verified by the affidavits of at least two credible witnesses, who are themselves citizens, to the fact of residence, etc. What follows is a matter of 'proofs.' In other words, it is a finding of facts from evidence. This is a judicial act, or a judgment, the memory of which is preserved in the records of the court. Congress has further made it the duty of the United States district attorney upon a certain showing to institute proceedings for 'setting aside and canceling' certificates of citizenship on the ground (as already stated) 'of fraud,' or on the ground that they were 'illegally procured.'
It is of course, true that, outside of the acts of Congress, admission to citizenship, like the admission of aliens to our shores, is not a right, but a privilege. Congress may prescribe the conditions upon which these high privileges may be enjoyed, and may commit to any official or tribunal the determination of any questions of fact upon which the privilege may depend. The right of appeal from the judgment rendered may be given or withheld. Congress has seen fit to commit the determination of the facts to the courts, and has made no provision for an appeal from the judgment reached. When an applicant has met all the requirements of the law, the privilege accorded him ripens into a right. It is his legal right to submit his petition and proofs to the court as the constituted tribunal to pass upon them. If certain facts appear to the satisfaction of the court, he is entitled to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tutun v. United States Neuberger v. Same
...to have that tribunal pass upon them, and, if the requisite facts are established, to receive the certificate. See United States v. Shanahan (D. C.) 232 F. 169, 171. There is, of course, no 'right to naturalization unless all statutory requirements are complied with.' United States v. Ginsb......
-
United States v. Kusche
... ... (d) Does Not Amount to Fraud: ... Yatsevitch 6/6/29 DC MASS 33 F.2d 342 Almost 5 years absence ... (e) Does Not Amount to Illegal Procurement: ... Deans 2/16/16 CCA 8th 230 F. 957 2 and 4 months absence ... Shanahan 4/8/16 DC ED PA 232 F. 169 Absent several months ... Jorgenson 12/2/16 DC WD MICH 241 F. 412 Absent two years ... Srednik 4/27/27 CCA 3rd 19 F.2d 71 Length not stated ... Zilver 1/26/32 DC ED NY 55 ... ...
-
United States v. Parisi, 2471.
...resided at the time of filing his petition for at least six months." "Residence" as here used means "domicile". United States v. Shanahan, D.C., 232 F. 169, 172; In re Barron, D.C., 26 F.2d 106; Petition of Oganesoff, D.C., 20 F.2d 978. The burden of proof is on the alien seeking naturaliza......
-
Gosschalk v. Gosschalk
...States v. Parisi, D.C.Md., 1938, 24 F.Supp. 414, 419; Petition of Oganesoff, D.C.S.D.Cal.1927, 20 F.2d 978, 980; United States v. Shanahan, D.C.E.D.Pa.1916, 232 F. 169, 172.)' In Nelson, Divorce and Annulment, supra, we find (p. 'One need not be a citizen of the United States unless the loc......