Yep Why Sun v. Dulles, Civ. A. No. 670.
| Decision Date | 28 March 1953 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 670. |
| Citation | 111 F. Supp. 30 |
| Parties | YEP WHY SUN v. DULLES, Secretary of State. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
John Davenport, Wichita Falls, Tex., for plaintiff.
Frank Potter, U. S. Atty., Charles Lindsey, Asst. U. S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., for defendant.
This suit is brought under section 903 of the Nationality Act, Title 8 U.S.C.A.
That Section provides for a declaration of United States nationality in the event of denial of rights and privileges as a national. It allows a person, "regardless of whether he is within the United States, or, abroad," to "institute an action against the head of such Department or agency in the District Court of the United States for * * * the district in which such person claims a permanent residence." Such action is "for a judgment declaring him to be a national of the United States * *."
This applicant was born in 1930. His father was an American citizen, who had visited his family village in China where he married the mother of this applicant. About twelve months after such marriage the applicant was born to them. The father returned to the United States after his marriage and forwarded money to the mother and his new son for their support. There appears to be no question as to the facts with reference to the boy's nationality. Prior to his majority, taking advantage of his dual citizenship, he came to the United States.
In Ryckman v. Acheson, D.C., 106 F. Supp. 739, will be found a decision under this particular statute. It relates to a woman who had been a citizen of Canada but moved to the United States with her husband, where her husband died, after which she returned to Canada in order that she might take care of her mother who was seriously ill.
That situation required the plaintiff to be with the mother constantly from April 1945 to the date of the mother's death which occurred some time later. During the times when others could stay with the mother, the plaintiff would return to the United States.
At no time did she understand or intend to waive her citizenship in the United States.
In 1946 her citizenship papers were taken away from her by the American Consul, and in June, 1950 she was formally advised that she had lost her citizenship. This was based upon an United States statute which provided that she had expatriated herself by residing continuously for three years in the territory of a foreign state in which the place of her birth is situated.
The court held that she did not lose her citizenship or nationality in the United States, by administering to her mother.
Also, in D.C., 106 F.Supp. 760, in Gualco v. Acheson, is a similar suit under the same statute by a brother and sister of Italian parentage who were citizens of Italy at the time the brother and sister were born in the United States, and by reason of such birth were United States citizens.
The taking of the children thereafter by their parents to Italy where the parents resumed their native nationality, the children also acquired that nationality but did not lose United States citizenship under the Nationality Act of 1940 by failing to return to the United States by their twenty-third birthday, if such residence abroad beyond that time is involuntary.
See also Nationality Act of 1940, §§ 401 (a), 407, 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 801(a), 807.
The child only loses its nationality if it does not return within a reasonable time after he is free to do so in order to...
To continue reading
Request your trial