Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T01:54:56.899Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Doctrine of Res Judicata in Naturalization Cases in the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2017

Henry B. Hazard
Henry B. Hazard*
Affiliation:
Bureau of Naturalization, United States Department of Labor
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

With nationality problems continuing to occupy a prominent place in both international and municipal practice, expressions of opinion of our highest tribunal upon the subject are received with peculiar interest. This is particularly true where the rule announced is one which governs the validity of naturalization judgments. In a recent sweeping naturalization decision which upholds the government’s views at every point, the United States Supreme Court has again stressed the rule that when doubt exists concerning a grant of citizenship, the statutes must be strictly construed in favor of the United States and against the alien. On October 22, 1928, the court handed down its opinion in the case of Anna Marie Maney, Petitioner, v. The United States of America, in which it affirmed, on writ of certiorari, the judgment of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The latter court had directed the cancellation of the applicant’s certificate of naturalization as having been “illegally procured” because of her failure to file, at the prescribed time and in the required manner, the certificate of her arrival in the United States.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , January 1929 , pp. 50 - 55
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1929

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 No. 27, October Term, 1928; 49 S. Ct. 15 [Advance Sheets].

2 United States v. Maney (1927), 21 F. (2d) 28.

3 Subdiv. 2, Sec. 4, Act of June 29, 1906; 34 Stat. 596, 597 (U. S. C. Title 8, Sec. 380), which provides in part: “ At the time of filing his petition there shall be filed with the clerk of the court a certificate from the Department of … 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, … which certificate … shall be attached to and made a part of said petition.”

4 Secs. 5 and 6, Act of 1906, supra (U. S. C. Title 8, Secs. 397 and 396).

5 Sec. 6, Act of March 3,1891; 26 Stat. 826, 828 (U. S. C. Title 28, Secs. 225, 346, 347 and 350); Sec. 128, Act of March 3, 1911; 36 Stat. 1087, 1133 (U. S. C. Title 28, Sec. 225);Sec.128 (a), Act of February 13, 1925; 43 Stat. 936 (U. S. C. Title 28, Sec. 225).

6 34 Stat. 601 (U. S. C. Title 8, Sec. 405). The pertinent portion of this section provides:“ That it shall be the duty of the United States district attorneys for the respective districts,upon affidavit showing good cause therefor, to institute proceedings in any court having jurisdiction to naturalize aliens in the judicial district in which the naturalized citizen may reside at the time of bringing the suit, for the purpose of setting aside and canceling the certificate of citizenship on the ground of fraud or on the ground that such certificate of citizenship was illegally procured. In any such proceedings the party holding the certificate of citizenship alleged to have been fraudulently or illegally procured shall have sixty days personal notice in which to make answer to the petition of the United States; and if the holder of such certificate be absent from the United States or from the district in which he last had his residence, such notice shall be given by publication in the manner provided for the service of summons by publication or upon absentees by the laws of the State or the place where such suit is brought.” This duty may also be performed by the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Naturalization. Subdiv. 7, Sec. 4, Act of 1906, supra, as amended by Sec. 1, Act of May 9, 1918; 40 Stat. 542, 544 (U. S. C. Title 8, Sec. 405).

7 United States v. Maney (D. C., E. D. Wis., 1926), 13 F. (2d) 662.

8 United States v. Maney (1927), 21 F. (2d) 28.

9 Brief for the United States, p. 2, in Maney v. United States, No. 27, October Term, 1928; 49 S. Ct. 15.

10 See United States v. Ness (1917), 245 U. S. 319, 323.

11 United States v. Richmond (C. C. A., 3rd Cir., 1927), 17 F. (2d) 28, 30; United States v.Srednik (C. C. A., 3rd Cir., 1927), 19 P. (2d) 71.

12 (1926), 270 U. S. 568, 577. See article, “ The Right of Appeal in Naturalization Cases in the Federal Courts,” by the writer, in this J o u r n a l , Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 40-52 (January,1927).

13 Maney v. United States, supra, 49 S. Ct. 15.

14 “ This [Act of 1906, supra] specifies with circumstantiality the manner (’ and not otherwise) in which an alien may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States; United States v. Ginsberg (1917), 243 U. S. 472, 473. “ Citizenship is a high privilege, and when doubts exist concerning a grant of it, generally at least, they should be resolved in favor of the United States and against the claimant.” United States v. Manzi (April 9, 1928), 276 U. S. 463, 467.

15 United States v. Maney (C. C. A., 7th Cir., 1927), 21 F. (2d) 28, 29.

16 United States v. Ness, supra. See also: United States v. Ovens (C. C. A., 4th Cir.,1926), 13 F. (2d) 376; United States v. Milder (C. C. A., 8th Cir., 1922), 284 Fed. 571; United States v. Mulvey (C. C. A., 2nd Cir., 1916), 232 Fed. 513; United States v. Ali (D. C., E. D. Mich., S. D., 1927), 20 F. (2d) 998; United States v. Leles (D. C., N. D. Calif.,2nd Div., 1916), 236 Fed. 784. United States v. Gokhale (C. C. A., 2nd Cir., 1928), 26 F. (2d) 360, was a case in which the applicant, a high-caste Hindu, had been naturalized in a State court prior to the rendition of United States v. Thind (1923), 261 U. S. 204, wherein the Supreme Court held Hindus to be ineligible to naturalization. After the latter decision, Gokhale's naturalization was canceled by a United States District Court in 1926, a few months prior to the decision in United States v. Sakharam Ganesh Pandit (C. C. A., 9th Cir., 1926), 15 F. (2d) 285, infra. The Circuit Court of Appeals in the Gokhale ease upheld the District Court, on a plea of res judicata. His prayer to the Supreme Court for writ ofcertiorari was allowed Oct. 22,1928 (No. 361, October Term, 1928). On Nov. 19, 1928, the Supreme Court granted stipulation to vacate and set aside the judgments of the lower Federal courts and to remand the cause with directions to dismiss the bill of complaint. The United States Daily, Nov. 20, 1928, p. 4 (yearly index 2326).

17 C. C. A., 9th Cir. (1926), 15 F. (2d), 285. See editorial comment upon this case, “ Denationalization of American Citizens” (high-caste Hindus), by J. W. Gamer, in this Journal , Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 106-107 (January, 1927). The Supreme Court in this case had denied the government's petition for certiorari. United States v. Sakharam Ganesh Pandit, No. 870 (March 14, 1927), 273 U. S. 759.

18 Sec. 11, Act of 1906, supra (U. S. C. Title 8, Sec. 399), which provides: “ That the United States shall have the right to appear before any court or courts exercising jurisdiction in naturalization proceedings for the purpose of cross-examining the petitioner and the witnesses produced in support of his petition concerning any matter touching or in any way affecting his right to admission to citizenship, and shall have the right to call witnesses, produce evidence, and be heard in opposition to the granting of any petition in naturalization proceedings.”

19 Rule 5, Naturalization Regulations, editions of Feb. 15, 1917, and Sept. 24, 1920,Washington, Government Printing Office.

20 United States v. Ness, supra, p. 324.

21 United States v. Ginsberg, supra, pp 474, 475.