United States v. Siem
| Decision Date | 30 June 1924 |
| Docket Number | 4182. |
| Citation | 299 F. 582 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. SIEM. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
John L Slattery, U.S. Atty., and Ronald Higgins, and Wellington H Meigs, Asst. U.S. Attys., all of Helena, Mont., and M. R Bevington, Chief Naturalization Examiner, of San Francisco Cal., for the United States.
H. A. Tyvand, of Butte, Mont., for appellee.
Before GILBERT, ROSS, and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges.
The appeal in this case brings under review the judgment of the court below denying the appellant's petition to set aside, in a direct attack under section 15 of the Naturalization Act (Comp. St. Sec. 4373), the certificate of citizenship granted to the appellee on November 27, 1922. On or about June 26, 1914, the appellee, then a citizen of Norway, declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States. In the draft of 1917 he claimed exemption on account of dependents, alienage, and physical unfitness. He was classified A-1, was called, examined, and rejected as physically unfit. He worked in the copper mines throughout the war. To his application for admission to citizenship the United States appeared in opposition. It is alleged in the complaint that the certificate of citizenship was procured by fraud, illegally, and contrary to the laws of the United States. The specification of fraud and illegality so charged is that, because of the appellee's claim of exemption from military service of the United States, and because of his unwillingness to return to his native country and enter its military service during the World War, he was not, during all of the five years immediately preceding the date of his petition for naturalization, a person attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, or well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same, and therefore did not possess the qualifications prescribed by the laws of the United States relative to the naturalization of aliens. The court below dismissed the complaint.
In United States v. Ginsberg, 243 U.S. 472, 37 Sup.Ct 422, 61 L.Ed. 853, the Supreme Court said that, if naturalization is '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. ' And in United States v. Ness, 245 U.S. 319, 38 Sup.Ct. 118, 62 L.Ed. 321, it was held that a decision of a court in naturalization proceedings, so far as it concerns irregularities of procedure, competency, or weight of evidence, or credibility of witnesses, is conclusive, if the United States appeared in the proceeding. In the present case no showing is made of fraud on the part of the appellee, but it is contended that his certificate of citizenship was 'illegally' procured. It has been held in a number of cases, among which are United States v. Luria (D.C.) 184 F. 643, and United States v. Lenore (D.C.) 207 F. 865, that 'illegally procured' implies willful misconduct, and not error of law. But the weight of authority seems to be that 'illegally procured' means procured contrary to the provisions of the law. Grahl v. United States (C.C.A.) 261 F. 487; United States v. Mulvey, 232 F. 513, 146 C.C.A. 471; United States v. Koopmans (D.C.) 290 F. 545. Accepting that meaning as applicable to the present case, the controlling question is whether or not the action of the appellee in claiming his exemption from military...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Kusche
...second is, that it has been disregarded by this circuit in three subsequent decisions; Woerndle case, 1923, 9 Cir., 288 F. 47; Siem case, 9 Cir., 1924, 299 F. 582; and Rowan case, 9 Cir., 1927, 18 F.2d In the Woerndle case 288 F. 49, the assertion was, as here, fraud in his oath of allegian......
-
United States v. Sakharam Ganesh Pandit
...in Akhay Kumar Mozumdar v. United States (C. C. A.) 299 F. 240, reviewed decree of cancellation of certificate, and in United States v. Siem (C. C. A.) 299 F. 582, reviewed decree denying cancellation, both actions brought under section 15 of the Naturalization Act. The question of res judi......
-
Banco Nacional de Cuba v. First National City Bank of NY
...U.S. (9 Cranch) 388, 423, 3 L.Ed. 769 (1815); Paquette Habana, 175 U.S. 677, 700, 20 S.Ct. 290, 44 L.Ed. 320 (1900); United States v. Siem, 299 F. 582, 583 (9th Cir. 1924); Schroeder v. Bissell, 5 F.2d 838 (D.Conn.1925); Reeves, The Sabbatino Case and the Sabbatino Amendment: Comedy—or Trag......
-
PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION OF FELLESON, Petition No. 730-P-384339.
...War I legislation see In re Gustavson, D.C.S.D.Cal.1924, 300 F. 251; In re Siem, D.C.Mont.1922, 284 F. 868, affirmed United States v. Siem, 9 Cir., 1924, 299 F. 582. 4 Sec. 701, Nationality Act of 1940, as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1001, now 8 U.S.C.A. § ...